White Guilt

[SoupIsGoodFood]

So it seems a lot of white leftists feel that they are "Guilty of being white". They seem to feel responsible for what other people of their race did or are doing now to repress other races. I think this is dumb, and the only white people should have white guilt are my neighborhood police force, my boss and my government officials, as they are the ones who are actually continuing the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And be proud of your heritage, white people. Theres nothing wrong with being white. I'm proud of my latino heritage, that doesn't mean that I think I'm better than anyone else, it just means I appreciate my culture and everything. Another thing white guilt leftists do is act like non white people can never be racist. True, there is no institutional racism against white people, but if you're white and you come to my neighborhood, you are going to get some shit from some black people, maybe the gangsters in the neighborhood will look at you as an easier target or start shit with you in the street or folks will trust you less. Some of you will say "Oh, their mistrust of white people is legitimate, white people have oppressed them in the past", but if you're going to argue that then in your train of thought it is legitimate for white people to mistrust latinos and blacks because of our history of violence and robbery against white people. Obviously, only a few of us rob and are violent, and only a few white people oppress minorities. And if you claim that minorities can't be racist, I invite you to be a white kid in my school. White kids take so much shit just from ignorant assholes for their race, I feel bad for them. In conclusion, my advice for white guilt leftists would be to stop hating your race and feel proud of your heritage, and actually treat everyone equally. Because really I'm kind of sick of you guys treating us "minorities" like we can get away with racism just because of the color of my skin, I'd rather be treated as an equal.

[Pogue]

Marixsm 2009 taught me I am part of the racist white working class. I'm not guilty cos its inevitable cos i'm an imperialist member of the labour aristocracy.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Are you kidding or are you serious? If your serious, if you are a non racist member of the working class you are doing nothing to hold me down, as a "person of color". Honestly I don't think race should even matter to leftists.

[Pogue]

i am forever condemned to drinking john smiths in an england shirt talking about darkies, its my fate, now leave me be! i have no revolutionary potential, only the ability to moan about immigration :(

Of course I'm not serious! I find my 'race' totally irrelevant, cos 'race' doesn't exist, colour is irrelevant and I don't feel guilty for something i've never done.

[AlMack]

hes joking mate, Marxism 09 was a very guilty white middle class liberal affair as per

YES IM GENERALISING

[AlMack]

posted that too late didnt I

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Yeah, when it comes down to it race is pretty irrelevant, I mean I think everyone should be a little proud of their respective cultures but not be too serious about it.

[h0m0revolutionary]

i am forever condemned to drinking john smiths in an england shirt talking about darkies, its my fate, now leave me be! i have no revolutionary potential, only the ability to moan about immigration :(

Of course I'm not serious! I find my 'race' totally irrelevant, cos 'race' doesn't exist, colour is irrelevant and I don't feel guilty for something i've never done.


haha comrade did you see what Lindsey German put in her dispute with the SWP Central Committee last year?

"...if I had been elected to the London Assembly in 2004 (as I very nearly was) then the balance of forces in Respect would have been very different. If white socialists had been elected in 2006 in Newham and Tower Hamlets (as they very nearly were) then the balance of forces and level of politics in those areas would have been raised. If Gordon Brown had not flirted with calling an election in autumn 2007 then maybe Galloway would not have attacked so rapidly..."

0_o confusing the SWP for Socialist Whites Party ;D

silly Lindsey :P

[Pogue]

utter nutters, i am referring to the seminar at marxism 'Is the white working class racist?"

[khad]

Of course I'm not serious! I find my 'race' totally irrelevant, cos 'race' doesn't exist, colour is irrelevant and I don't feel guilty for something i've never done.
And of course, the fact that you say that you don't oppress minorities is irrelevant. Despite one's best intentions there are social advantages to being white. For instance, someone like you isn't likely to be randomly stopped and beaten by the police for no reason. At least, not as likely as a latino or black person would. There's a difference between individual racism and systemic, institutionalized racism that derives power from the very fabric of society.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb01.htm

"THE STORIES, THE STATISTICS, AND THE LAW:WHY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK"MATTERS
David A. Harris"

[Coggeh]

utter nutters, i am referring to the seminar at marxism 'Is the white working class racist?"
And .... are we ?:rolleyes:

[Pogue]

And .... are we ?:rolleyes:

we're a bunch of fucking nazis the lot of us, i considered no platforming myself

[Coggeh]

And of course, the fact that you say that you don't oppress minorities is irrelevant. Despite one's best intentions there are social advantages to being white. For instance, someone like you isn't likely to be randomly stopped and beaten by the police for no reason. At least, not as likely as a latino or black person would.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb01.htm

"THE STORIES, THE STATISTICS, AND THE LAW:WHY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK"MATTERS
David A. Harris"

Colour is revelant of course in a capitalist world , and in western bourgeois countries black/arab/latino working class are going to be discriminated against more so than white working class . Doesn't make the white working class racist though .

[Coggeh]

we're a bunch of fucking nazis the lot of us, i considered no platforming myself
I knew it all along ......

[khad]

Colour is revelant of course in a capitalist world , and in western bourgeois countries black/arab/latino working class are going to be discriminated against more so than white working class . Doesn't make the white working class racist though .
No, it doesn't. But at the same time one should recognize the fact that white people occupy a privileged position. Only then can you begin working against it.

Too often I see American workers talk about how non-racist they are only to turn around in the same breath to talk about latinos and black folks being lazy.

[Pogue]

No, it doesn't. But at the same time one should recognize the fact that white people occupy a privileged position. Only then can you begin working against it.

Too often I see American workers talk about how non-racist they are only to turn around in the same breath to talk about latinos and black folks being lazy.

I don't think I'm in a priviliged position because I'm white.

[khad]

I don't think I'm in a priviliged position because I'm white.
If you don't believe that people are born socially advantaged and disadvantaged on the grounds of race in Western capitalist societies, you are delusional.

This is the kind of myopia to racial oppression that gets the white left accused of being racist in the first place.

[RainbowLeftist]

No guilt here.

'nuff said.

[Pogue]

If you don't believe that people are born socially advantaged and disadvantaged on the grounds of race in Western capitalist societies, you are delusional.

What priviliges do I have for being white?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

You probably have some small advantages over me when it comes to racist cops and employers, but it would even out if you were in my position when it comes to my neighborhood cause you would definitely be discriminated against by a fair amount of peole.

[hammer and sickle]

The "white" working class can't be racist because the white working class doesnt exist! Race doesnt exist it is just another label thrown at us by society. White is a shade not a group of people!

[Pogue]

But I don't live in your neighbourhood. I don't see what privilige I have over my black neighbours.

[khad]

What priviliges do I have for being white?
Just mentioned one. Far less likely to be harassed by cops. More likely to be hired for jobs on account of owners' racism. Even white homeless people get more change from passerbys than black bums. Society treats people differently on account of race.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Well its probably easier for you to get a job and less likely for you to be a victim of police brutality.

[Pogue]

Just mentioned one. Far less likely to be harassed by cops. More likely to be hired for jobs on account of owners' racism. Even white homeless people get more change from passerbys than black bums. Society treats people differently on account of race.

I don't think the job hiring thing is across the board. Where I worked there was alot of non-white people.

Maybe your right on the police thing actually. I think there are minor differences relating to things like the police which is still racist but I don't think I am significantly priviliged.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Naw, its definitely not significant, and I have some "privilege" over you as a non white person but its also not significant.

[khad]

I don't think the job hiring thing is across the board. Where I worked there was alot of non-white people.

Maybe your right on the police thing actually. I think there are minor differences relating to things like the police which is still racist but I don't think I am significantly priviliged.
I don't know what the situation is like exactly in Britain, since my good friend left there many years ago, but in this country it can get pretty ridiculous.



B. Maryland
A short time after completing his analysis of the New Jersey data, Lamberth also conducted a study of traffic stops by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 between Baltimore and the Delaware border. In 1993, an African-American Harvard Law School graduate named Robert Wilkins filed a federal lawsuit against the Maryland State Police. Wilkins alleged that the police stopped him as he was driving with his family, questioned them and searched the car with a drug-sniffing dog because of their race. When a State Police memo surfaced during discovery instructing troopers to look for drug couriers who were described as "predominantly black males and black females," the State Police settled with Wilkins. As part of the settlement, the police agreed to give the court data on every stop followed by a search conducted with the driver's consent or with a dog for three years. The data also were to include the race of the driver.
With this data, Lamberth used a rolling survey, similar to the one in New Jersey, to determine the racial breakdown of the driving population. Lamberth's assistants observed almost 6,000 cars over approximately 42 randomly distributed hours. As he had in New Jersey, Lamberth concluded that blacks and whites drove no differently; the percentages of blacks and whites violating the traffic code were virtually indistinguishable. More importantly, Lamberth's analysis found that although 17.5% of the population violating the traffic code on theroad he studied was black, more than 72% of those stopped and searched were black. In more than 80% of the cases, the person stopped and searched was a member of some racial minority. The disparity between 17.5% black and 72% stopped includes 34.6 standard deviations. Such statistical significance, Lamberth said, "is literally off the charts."

[Pogue]

I think there are clear differences with the police. I don't think you could say the same with employers, not with most of them anyway.

I wouldn't say I am 'priviliged' though, class is clearly the most important thing, a white-black divide here to say one is 'priviliged' simply doesnt exist.

[Pogue]

I don't know what the situation is like exactly in Britain, since my good friend left there many years ago, but in this country it can get pretty ridiculous.

[/SIZE]

Yeh with the police its still there. Mainly for young black guys. But I dont think that makes me 'priviliged', it just shows racism in the police.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

It probably evens out with affirmative action laws and shit too.

[khad]

Yeh with the police its still there. Mainly for young black guys. But I dont think that makes me 'priviliged', it just shows racism in the police.
Perhaps privilege isn't the exact word for it. Maybe "relative social advantage"

[Pogue]

Perhaps privilege isn't the exact word for it. Maybe "relative social advantage"

I think its just that being black your more likely to get racism from twats.

[khad]

I think its just that being black your more likely to get racism from twats.
When those twats comprise a good part of society and dominate in institutions like the police, you can bet that it's a social disadvantage.

[RedCommieBear]

When those twats comprise a good part of society and dominate in institutions like the police, you can bet that it's a social disadvantage.

But it isn't necessarily his advantage. For example, let's talk discrepancies in income, and just because the numbers are off the top of my head, I'll use the disparity between men and women (you'd expect a similar disparity between whites and minorities).

On average, women make 25% less than a man makes (even when they're doing the same job). However, it would be a mistake to think women are being payed less so men can get payed more. It's not to the capitalist self interest to take money from the women and give it to the men - it's irrational. Men don't really benefit per se from the income disparity between women.

[Il Medico]

Race is irrelevant in leftism (except of course when dealing with discrimination). It doesn't matter if you're white, black, brown, or bloody purple. We are all human and we are all leftist. There is no reason for a white leftist to feel guilty. If you have never been a racist ass then there is no reason to be remorseful. You really can't help what your ancestors did, no more then you can control the opinions of others.

[Dr Mindbender]

Being Irish myself, this sort of thing is my get-out-of jail free card.

http://dogonablog.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/no_irish_no_blacks.jpg

[War Cry]

I think there are clear differences with the police. I don't think you could say the same with employers, not with most of them anyway.

I wouldn't say I am 'priviliged' though, class is clearly the most important thing, a white-black divide here to say one is 'priviliged' simply doesnt exist.

Oh no. You're one of those anarchists, aren't you. Anarchists need to collectively realize the intersections of oppression that all stem from capitalism. I always, always find it ironic when white male anarchists say class is the only issue, and start spouting their heads off about identity politics. Class oppression is no different from all the other forms of oppression. Usually other forms of oppression lead to class oppression. The pink collar ghetto? It's ironic, because you're choosing your oppression and making it the most important oppression. Which is sort of....classic masculine androcentric behavior, now isn't it?

As for white guilt, I think white guilt is pointless. Why on earth would people spend all of their time feeling bad for all of these things? It's ineffective at best and counter-revolutionary at worst. However, recognizing the privilege that white skin brings and actively working to do something about it is quite effective. Realizing and internalizing that white people directly and tangibly profit and benefit from thousands of years of racist institutions is quite beneficial to the cause.

Now, when it comes to oppression I have it mapped out in my mind in this weird sort of flow chart. I think that all oppression stems from class oppression and capitalism. In my opinion, the root of oppression is the ability to make profit off of another human being. I think class oppression is primary. However, if we start to say that the only oppression is class oppression, it silences those of us who have oppressions that are direct result of capitalism. I encounter sexism when I organize, and its coming from people in the same class as me. How does that work?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Oh no. You're one of those anarchists, aren't you. Anarchists need to collectively realize the intersections of oppression that all stem from capitalism. I always, always find it ironic when white male anarchists say class is the only issue, and start spouting their heads off about identity politics. Class oppression is no different from all the other forms of oppression. Usually other forms of oppression lead to class oppression. The pink collar ghetto? It's ironic, because you're choosing your oppression and making it the most important oppression. Which is sort of....classic masculine androcentric behavior, now isn't it?

As for white guilt, I think white guilt is pointless. Why on earth would people spend all of their time feeling bad for all of these things? It's ineffective at best and counter-revolutionary at worst. However, recognizing the privilege that white skin brings and actively working to do something about it is quite effective. Realizing and internalizing that white people directly and tangibly profit and benefit from thousands of years of racist institutions is quite beneficial to the cause.

Now, when it comes to oppression I have it mapped out in my mind in this weird sort of flow chart. I think that all oppression stems from class oppression and capitalism. In my opinion, the root of oppression is the ability to make profit off of another human being. I think class oppression is primary. However, if we start to say that the only oppression is class oppression, it silences those of us who have oppressions that are direct result of capitalism. I encounter sexism when I organize, and its coming from people in the same class as me. How does that work?

Honestly, I think that as a latino I don't have it that much worse than working class white people. Could you provide specific examples of sexism when you organize? Plus aren't you the woman who says that you don't support freedom of speech? In my opinion, one of the most oppressive things you can do is put another human being in a cage or have them executed because they said something you find offensive. And yeah, I'm an anarchist. In your opinion, should I be jailed and or executed?

[War Cry]

Honestly, I think that as a latino I don't have it that much worse than working class white people. Could you provide specific examples of sexism when you organize? Plus aren't you the woman who says that you don't support freedom of speech? In my opinion, one of the most oppressive things you can do is put another human being in a cage or have them executed because they said something you find offensive. And yeah, I'm an anarchist. In your opinion, should I be jailed and or executed?

This question has been posed to me once already. I'll just repost the answer. Unless your motivation is for me to detail a few specific examples of sexism while organizing so that you can then analyze whether or not they were properly labeled as sexism. Then I'll just ask you to reference point #1 on the Laundry List of Grievances, and use you as my first example :)



Laundry List of Grievances
1.) They don't trust women's experiences. When they're called out on sexism, they tell us we're wrong. That it's something else. That our feelings of being oppressed and silenced are invalid.
2.) They never, ever, ever under any circumstances admit that they're wrong or that they don't have the information. When they're called out on providing false information, they just squirm and make excuses.
3.) They interrupt women. All the time. All the fucking time.
4.) They tell us how to organize. If our organizing methods are different from theirs, theirs is inherently better. They just can't fathom that women would put just as much thought and consideration into our organizing tactics as they would.
5.) If we're more experienced than they are, they still act like they know better.
6.) They place us in roles that are "fit for women's work" like taking the fucking notes. Just because our handwriting is better than yours doesn't mean you get to make us your goddamn secretary.
7.) They don't share access to resources and information with other fellow organizers that are women.
8.) They use their aggression, body language, and strength to assert subtle but clear threats of violence that ring out loud and clear to those of us who have been raised under the threat of rape and raised fist.
9.) If you really, really challenge them, and begin to be effective, they retaliate.

Most of the time, they're egotistical, arrogant, infuriating, manipulative, coercive, oppressive, alpha male, hyper masculine, aggressive jackasses.

Freedom of speech, or freedom to be an oppressive prick? I very clearly see a difference. I'm not going to shoot you or cage you for saying something that I don't like. I reserve the right to retaliate, if you continue to limit my freedom, autonomy and right to self-determination. If you continue to say sexist things to me, I'm going to make you stop.


Oh, and I'm an anarchist. What I meant was one of those anarchists that see class as the only oppression. It seemed to me that that was what they were saying.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Sounds like your pretty damn prejudiced against men: "egotistical, arrogant, infuriating, manipulative, coercive, oppressive, alpha male, hyper masculine, aggressive jackasses" Way to generalize. Maybe you have experienced sexism, but I haven't heard any specific examples, and it seems like many of those complaints are just random things that you have interpreted as sexism. It also seems kind of suspect when you say anyone who questions you or doesn't automatically accept that people have been sexist to you they are sexist. And, again, just judging by that post, your attitude towards men seems a little bit sexist, and if you come off like that in person people will probably not be so friendly to you. You should have the freedom to be an oppressive prick in your speech just like I should have the freedom to call you out on it. If your speech translates into oppressive actions that actually oppress people, then we have the right to respond.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

And I can't see why you're so offended when I ask you to back up your claims. If a man said he had been discriminated against, I would ask him for specific examples too. So you want to be treated as less equal to men and not actually be challenged in a debate? I also think its awesome that you accuse me of sexism because I don't just automatically accept what you say as fact.

[War Cry]

Sounds like your pretty damn prejudiced against men: "egotistical, arrogant, infuriating, manipulative, coercive, oppressive, alpha male, hyper masculine, aggressive jackasses" Way to generalize.

Yeah, I am. Are you super friendly to rich folks? Do we not say hang the bourgeoisie by their entrails? Don't you think you're overgeneralizing?


Maybe you have experienced sexism, but I haven't heard any specific examples, and it seems like many of those complaints are just random things that you have interpreted as sexism. It also seems kind of suspect when you say anyone who questions you or doesn't automatically accept that people have been sexist to you they are sexist.I don't know what to tell you, dude. You're obviously not really listening. It seems like you're saying I should trust you to tell me whether or not something is sexist.



And, again, just judging by that post, your attitude towards men seems a little bit sexist, and if you come off like that in person people will probably not be so friendly to you. You should have the freedom to be an oppressive prick in your speech just like I should have the freedom to call you out on it. If your speech translates into oppressive actions that actually oppress people, then we have the right to respond.Women can't be sexist towards men. Sexism relies on an institution, we don't currently have an institution that backs women. Men have the privilege. What is oppressive speech other than an oppressive action? People are very friendly to me.

I don't feel like explaining to you what it's like to grow up as a woman and the impact that's going to have on someone. Therefore, I can't explain to you why oppressive language translates into oppressive actions.

And for God's sake, if you're going to quote me, at the very least do so correctly. I said bloody most of the time they're egotistical, arrogant, aggressive, coercive, manipulative, hypermasculine jackasses. That doesn't mean they always are.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

So you're equating men to rich folks? No, I do not think we should hang the bourgeoisie by their entrails.I don't think you should trust me to tell you what is sexist, I'm just asking you to provide an example of discrimination. And so its cool if a woman hates men? Thats not sexism? What is it? Is it ok for me to hate white people? Of course not, and if I did I would be a racist. And by "Oppressive action" I meant actually coercion. How can you call yourself an anarchist if you support the coercion of people just for saying things that offend you? People have been racist to me, but I realize that that is their freedom, just like its my freedom to tell them to fuck off.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Would it be racist if I said that black people are "Egotistical, selfish, violent and misogynistic" most of the time? It would be about as true as your man analogy (not very) and it would be just as prejudiced.

[Il Medico]

Women can't be sexist towards men.
This is not correct. Yes sexism in western society and many others is and has been most often gear in favor of the male. However, to say one can not discriminate against someone based on gender just because they they are a member of the oppressed gender in their society is not true.

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Sexism is the discrimination toward someone based on gender. A woman can be prejudiced against a man just as a man can be against a woman.

I fully understand that you had some horrible experiences with the male gender. (I have read your introduction thread, I am truly very sorry). And your resentment, and even possible hatred of men is understandable. However, I hope you realize that most men are not like that, especially here. And I hope you do not hate all men because of the action of a few, men are not vile monsters, we are human same as you.

[gorillafuck]

Captain Jack, I'd say most men are patriarchal and sexism in the west isn't just "most often geared in favor of the male", it always is. Saying "most men aren't like that" is wrong because I'd agree with her that the majority of men are sexist and we are definitely the oppressing sex.

Anywho, white/male guilt is not productive. Being born as one or more of those things (I happen to be both of them) doesn't inherently make you an oppressor. It makes you a member of the oppressing sex/race.

[Invariance]

I find my 'race' totally irrelevant, cos 'race' doesn't exist, colour is irrelevant and I don't feel guilty for something i've never done.Sorry, but I think this is a poor line of reasoning.

Just because race is an arbitrary and unscientific biological concept does not mean that socially it has profound and very real implications.

Likewise, just because class isn't a biological construct doesn't mean that 'it isn't real' and therefore of no consequence to no one; quite the opposite.

Both have real implications - class being defined broadly as a person's relationship to the means of production. Race being defined on whatever salient characteristics - typically skin color... Yet just because it is a bogus scientific concept doesn't mean that it doesn't exist socially.

Trying to dismiss the repercussions of being a certain race (or not being a certain race) or ethnic group on the basis that it has no biological standing reeks of trying to dismiss the very real social implications which exist nonetheless, whether you recognize them or not.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Cool, you guys can toss stereotypes around of men. I haven't even heard one example of sexism, just a couple rants about how horrible men are over what seems to be trivial bullshit and equating most men to upper class oppressors. It seems to be misinterpretation of the mens actions, but what do I know, I'm a man, which makes me stupid and sexist. How dare I even engage a woman in debate or question her politics! I apologize in advance for being so sexist.

[Invariance]

This [woman cannot be sexist to men] is not correct. Yes sexism in western society and many others is and has been most often gear in favor of the male. However, to say one can not discriminate against someone based on gender just because they they are a member of the oppressed gender in their society is not true.

Sexism is the discrimination toward someone based on gender. A woman can be prejudiced against a man just as a man can be against a woman.

Although directed at another person, I would like to comment on this.

I think its useful when addressing this question to differentiate between the personal bigotry of an individual and discrimination which stems from whatever institutional/economic setting. Men can, of course, be subject to personal bigotry from women. But they are not subject to sexism which manifests itself as discrimination - i.e denied a job on the basis of their sex or denied a standard of living on the basis of their sex or whatever form of discrimination which exists.

Women, on the other hand, face both personal bigotry from men and are on the receiving end of institutional sexism. In the same way a white man can be on the receiving end of personal bigotry from a black man, but on an institutional basis he won't be discriminated against (whether by employers or by the police).

That is the world of a difference, and to equate the two is really capitulating to a liberal standard which forgets about the material background which people live, and instead pretends that all social groups are the same - and hence that all forms of bigotry are the same; they aren't.


Cool, you guys can toss stereotypes around of men. I haven't even heard one example of sexism, just a couple rants about how horrible men are over what seems to be trivial bullshit and equating most men to upper class oppressors. It seems to be misinterpretation of the mens actions, but what do I know, I'm a man, which makes me stupid and sexist. How dare I even engage a woman in debate or question her politics! I apologize in advance for being so sexist.Chill out and stop being so defensive.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Ok.

[Bex]

Oh no. You're one of those anarchists, aren't you. Anarchists need to collectively realize the intersections of oppression that all stem from capitalism. I always, always find it ironic when white male anarchists say class is the only issue, and start spouting their heads off about identity politics. Class oppression is no different from all the other forms of oppression. Usually other forms of oppression lead to class oppression. The pink collar ghetto? It's ironic, because you're choosing your oppression and making it the most important oppression. Which is sort of....classic masculine androcentric behavior, now isn't it?

As for white guilt, I think white guilt is pointless. Why on earth would people spend all of their time feeling bad for all of these things? It's ineffective at best and counter-revolutionary at worst. However, recognizing the privilege that white skin brings and actively working to do something about it is quite effective. Realizing and internalizing that white people directly and tangibly profit and benefit from thousands of years of racist institutions is quite beneficial to the cause.

Now, when it comes to oppression I have it mapped out in my mind in this weird sort of flow chart. I think that all oppression stems from class oppression and capitalism. In my opinion, the root of oppression is the ability to make profit off of another human being. I think class oppression is primary. However, if we start to say that the only oppression is class oppression, it silences those of us who have oppressions that are direct result of capitalism. I encounter sexism when I organize, and its coming from people in the same class as me. How does that work?

I agree 100%.

[yuon]

@Pogue (and anyone else who denies that being "white" is a privilege).

Pogue, you are British yes (if not, adjust for for nationality)? Fly to Switzerland (not sure if it's the same in other European countries), Australia or the USA. Take along a "black" friend.

Notice who gets the most hassle at the airport. (Hint, it won't be you, if you are "white" that is, which from your attitude, I'm guessing you are.)

So, filth and border filth both treat you differently, depending on the colour of the skin.

You might not notice, that's sort of like men saying that they don't notice sexism. Yeah, funny that, it's 'cause most of it is directed at women.

[Led Zeppelin]

I wouldn't say I am 'priviliged' though, class is clearly the most important thing, a white-black divide here to say one is 'priviliged' simply doesnt exist.

White people are definitely privileged in a multitude of ways in capitalist societies that are dominated by them. Actually I'd go further and say that they are privileged globally because the most powerful capitalist states are dominated by them.

One example; I went to Iran about 4 years ago and stayed at a Hotel for the weekend. I could notice the level of "respect" given to Iranian people being significantly lower than the level of "respect" given to white tourists. But the white tourist and the Iranians staying there were "equal" in terms of class background.

That is the whole point of what Khad was saying; you are never on an equal footing when the circumstances are equal. Yes, a rich black person is more privileged than you are, but a black person of the same class background as you is certainly not more privileged, but less. In the same manner a rich white person is more privileged than a rich black person.

When both of you go in for job interviews, you are more likely to get hired.

When both of you apply for a college, you are more likely to get accepted.

When both of you go out at nights and want to go clubbing, you are more likely to get in.

When both of you have white girlfriends, you would have considerably less problems being accepted by the parents of the girl or by society in general.

When both of you go into a store, you are less likely to be suspected of stealing by the clerks.

When cops are racially profiling, you are less likely of being a victim of it.

When people see you, they are less likely to think you are a Muslim who supports conservative social values (this happens to me all the time).

When both of you are at the airport at the check-in, you are less likely to be asked to move to another area to take off your clothes and have all your bags checked (this happened to me in the Netherlands when I went to the US, and I was the only one out of the hundreds of passengers who had to do this).

When both of you arrive at the airport in the other country, you are less likely to be asked if you ever visited an Islamic School (US customs asked me this and other idiotic questions of a similar nature when I arrived, before they eventually let me go. Once again I was the only one out of the hundreds of passengers who was held up at customs while they checked my Dutch passport vigorously for any errors).

And so on and so forth.

[khad]

One example; I went to Iran about 4 years ago and stayed at a Hotel for the weekend. I could notice the level of "respect" given to Iranian people being significantly lower than the level of "respect" given to white tourists. But the white tourist and the Iranians staying there were "equal" in terms of class background.
This is one of the reasons why I hate tourists with an irrational fury. Second only to "English teachers," those barely-qualified hacks who go to Asia or Eastern Europe to live the high life while pissing on the local people and conning them out of their money.

[pastradamus]

You probably have some small advantages over me when it comes to racist cops and employers, but it would even out if you were in my position when it comes to my neighborhood cause you would definitely be discriminated against by a fair amount of peole.


Let me put it this way. Nobody chooses the Colour of themselves at Birth. So its Foolish to be proud of it and its just plain Evil to discriminate against others who do not share your own skin pigmentation.

In response to your original post you are absolutely correct. You Owe nothing to any person of ANY colour - except the same respect you wish to be treated with yourself.

[pastradamus]

White people are definitely privileged in a multitude of ways in capitalist societies that are dominated by them. Actually I'd go further and say that they are privileged globally because the most powerful capitalist states are dominated by them.



Absolutely, I understand and agree with what your saying ,However the fact that Every Major Western Capitalist country is dominated White people hardly makes white people responsible for the fact they are more privileged than Most of the rest of the world. Most of these Privileges White people have today are a direct result of their own Working class Struggles against the ruling powers.

[FreeFocus]

Absolutely, I understand and agree with what your saying ,However the fact that Every Major Western Capitalist country is dominated White people hardly makes white people responsible for the fact they are more privileged than Most of the rest of the world. Most of these Privileges White people have today are a direct result of their own Working class Struggles against the ruling powers.

I don't have the time for a proper response to this at the moment (when I get back home later I'll make a post here), but this is bullshit, particularly the bolded part. This whole thread seems to be filled with basically right-wing sentiment - I thought this was RevLeft, not RevRepubs.

[pastradamus]

I don't have the time for a proper response to this at the moment (when I get back home later I'll make a post here), but this is bullshit, particularly the bolded part. This whole thread seems to be filled with basically right-wing sentiment - I thought this was RevLeft, not RevRepubs.

You misunderstood me. What I was talking about was the everyday rights of people in the West in Comparison with some third world countries. I was simply remarking that in the west we didnt get workers rights because the status quo felt particularly generous and just handed them out - they had to be achieved by brute force and resistance, kings and dictatorships had to fall and make way for elections, something which is going on in Iran at the moment and in that sense I think we should support it.

On the privilaged part, one can point to the matter of colonialism as a reason for economic gain in the West, be that as it may not every White dominated Country in the West was an Imperial power and many were victims of imperialism themselves, example: Ireland and Iceland.

[Il Medico]

Although directed at another person, I would like to comment on this.

I think its useful when addressing this question to differentiate between the personal bigotry of an individual and discrimination which stems from whatever institutional/economic setting. Men can, of course, be subject to personal bigotry from women. But they are not subject to sexism which manifests itself as discrimination - i.e denied a job on the basis of their sex or denied a standard of living on the basis of their sex or whatever form of discrimination which exists.

Women, on the other hand, face both personal bigotry from men and are on the receiving end of institutional sexism. In the same way a white man can be on the receiving end of personal bigotry from a black man, but on an institutional basis he won't be discriminated against (whether by employers or by the police).

That is the world of a difference, and to equate the two is really capitulating to a liberal standard which forgets about the material background which people live, and instead pretends that all social groups are the same - and hence that all forms of bigotry are the same; they aren't.
I fully realize this. I was addressing her assertion that women could not be bigoted towards men because of the institutional/societal bigotry towards them.

Women can't be sexist towards men.These are, as you said, two different things. Otherwise I completely agree. Society is still quite sexist, and many men are in some way or another a little sexist because of what they grew up being thought. This is the same with homophobia or racism or the sort. Just because society is geared against a gay person, or a black person, it does not excuse any personal bigotry on our part.

[Led Zeppelin]

Most of these Privileges White people have today are a direct result of their own Working class Struggles against the ruling powers.

I'm not going to go into this in detail because I want to see FreeFocus's reply to it, which I'm sure will represent my views on this issue as well.

But, just one thing I want to point out; imperialism had something to do with it as well.

EDIT: Just saw your other post.


On the privilaged part, one can point to the matter of colonialism as a reason for economic gain in the West, be that as it may not every White dominated Country in the West was an Imperial power and many were victims of imperialism themselves, example: Ireland and Iceland.

Even though Ireland was an oppressed nation at one point its liberation and subsequent development prove that it's oppression was not of the same nature as that of, say, the whole of Africa, the Middle-East, South-America or other parts of the world ravaged by imperialism and are still suffering from the consequences of it.

The United States was once also an "oppressed nation", oppressed by the United Kingdom as well. That does not mean anything considering its later development.

The point is; no matter how strong the working-class movement may be, the ruling class can't throw a lot of crumbs to them if the pie isn't very big to begin with, and in the case of the dominant capitalist powers it is pretty big.

But that wasn't really what I was saying with that part of my post. I wasn't referring to the gains white workers have attained in the most advanced capitalist nations (and that making them privileged), I was referring to the most advanced capitalist nations being predominately ruled by white people, and that power exerting itself throughout the globe as a result. That is the explanation behind the commonly called "white powerstructure". It is a materialist analysis of it.

[Pogue]

Oh no. You're one of those anarchists, aren't you. Anarchists need to collectively realize the intersections of oppression that all stem from capitalism. I always, always find it ironic when white male anarchists say class is the only issue, and start spouting their heads off about identity politics. Class oppression is no different from all the other forms of oppression. Usually other forms of oppression lead to class oppression. The pink collar ghetto? It's ironic, because you're choosing your oppression and making it the most important oppression. Which is sort of....classic masculine androcentric behavior, now isn't it?

As for white guilt, I think white guilt is pointless. Why on earth would people spend all of their time feeling bad for all of these things? It's ineffective at best and counter-revolutionary at worst. However, recognizing the privilege that white skin brings and actively working to do something about it is quite effective. Realizing and internalizing that white people directly and tangibly profit and benefit from thousands of years of racist institutions is quite beneficial to the cause.

Now, when it comes to oppression I have it mapped out in my mind in this weird sort of flow chart. I think that all oppression stems from class oppression and capitalism. In my opinion, the root of oppression is the ability to make profit off of another human being. I think class oppression is primary. However, if we start to say that the only oppression is class oppression, it silences those of us who have oppressions that are direct result of capitalism. I encounter sexism when I organize, and its coming from people in the same class as me. How does that work?

What I was disputing is that I don't think I am 'priviliged'. I think that term is too strong and doesn't accurately portray the reality for my area and my life. I have recognised skin colour has an effect on people with regards to certain racist institutions. I think your one of those people who just loves an excuse to have a dig at someone, really.

[gorillafuck]

What I was disputing is that I don't think I am 'priviliged'. I think that term is too strong and doesn't accurately portray the reality for my area and my life. I have recognised skin colour has an effect on people with regards to certain racist institutions. I think your one of those people who just loves an excuse to have a dig at someone, really.
You are privileged because these racist institutions don't don't discriminate against your race.

I don't see how you can acknowledge that society is profoundly racist but dispute that being white gives you more privilege than the races who are oppressed by it.

[Dust Bunnies]

I am white, but I feel no pride in the countries my ancestors came from. The idea of nationalities are silly. I am human and you are human and that is all I need.

[Pogue]

You are privileged because these racist institutions don't don't discriminate against your race.

I don't see how you can acknowledge that society is profoundly racist but dispute that being white gives you more privilege than the races who are oppressed by it.

But I'm saying I don't think there is enough to constitute privilige. I don't see how I am more priviliged than say, my asian friend. I think class is more important.

[gorillafuck]

But I'm saying I don't think there is enough to constitute privilige. I don't see how I am more priviliged than say, my asian friend. I think class is more important.
Of course class is more important. But that doesn't mean that institutional racism and male dominance should be downplayed (though we of course need to connect capitalism to these things).

[War Cry]

What I was disputing is that I don't think I am 'priviliged'. I think that term is too strong and doesn't accurately portray the reality for my area and my life. I have recognised skin colour has an effect on people with regards to certain racist institutions. I think your one of those people who just loves an excuse to have a dig at someone, really.

I don't think that's true. I think I like to debate with people and explore theoretical ideas. Aren't we all like that, if we spend time on these threads discussing politics?

I think white men are privileged regardless of their area and their life because society is structured in a way that gives them every opportunity and resource. And I'm responding to a denial of that because of your class status. If you look at it from a conflict-theory sociology perspective, you have much greater access to upward class mobility than anyone else. Now, upward class mobility is so rare you can almost call it a myth, and what many people see as upward class mobility is actually horizontal class mobility, however, if anyone makes it up a class, it's white men.

I'm writing a blog on why I don't hate men. Ya'll are welcome to read it if you like. I don't want to clog the thread defending/explaining my politics, it seems inappropriate.

[Module]

Sounds like your pretty damn prejudiced against men: "egotistical, arrogant, infuriating, manipulative, coercive, oppressive, alpha male, hyper masculine, aggressive jackasses" Way to generalize. Maybe you have experienced sexism, but I haven't heard any specific examples, and it seems like many of those complaints are just random things that you have interpreted as sexism. It also seems kind of suspect when you say anyone who questions you or doesn't automatically accept that people have been sexist to you they are sexist. And, again, just judging by that post, your attitude towards men seems a little bit sexist, and if you come off like that in person people will probably not be so friendly to you. You should have the freedom to be an oppressive prick in your speech just like I should have the freedom to call you out on it. If your speech translates into oppressive actions that actually oppress people, then we have the right to respond.
Of course if she comes across like that in person people will not be friendly. That's because, as you are a perfect example of, there are a lot of men who find the suggestion that sexism exists to be somewhat offensive. Just the whiny preachings of a 'man hater'.
No, perhaps it's the experience of a woman who has respect for herself and therefore doesn't accept the obvious social disadvantage she has compared to men, which manifests itself in innumerable different ways, ranging from the subtle to the obvious, which also is dependent upon the perspective itself - as has already been mentioned, of course plenty of men don't notice the full presence of sexism in social situations. They're not negatively effected by them, and it may not be in their interests to recognise it.
To say that acknowledging sexism is to demonstrate some kind of 'prejudice' against men is just an obvious way to shift blame towards those women and to avoid full scrutiny of power relationships between social groups. Sexism exists within society; men are sexist. That's not prejudice - that's fact. I suggest you try and deal with it.
By the way, I am doubtful that the OP is that written from the perspective of a non-white person. Well, a non-white person or a reasonable person.
As has been said by others, nobody on the left, minus the odd idiot liberal, feels any sort of 'guilt' for being white. What they do, rather, is acknowledge the inherent social disadvantage non-white individuals have in society.
Social oppression is not a scale from 'disadvantaged' to 'priviledged', with white people being on the right and non-white people being on the left.
Being black (or, say, asian or Muslim or gay or female) is to have a specific social experience shaped by certain aspects of yourself which are socially meaningful. Mr. 'White Straight Christian Male' is not the revered god of society. He should feel absolutely no guilt, considering of course he rejects social discrimination himself. He simply lacks an inherent biological justification for social inferiority.
As other people have said, social oppression exists simply because the political and economic structure allows (and encourages) such discrimination to take place. Whilst free from economic inequality there is no inherent cause for social inequality to exist, to deny the relevance of social discrimination is to ignore what for most people shapes the very way in which they experience class oppression.

This is, I feel, the key point to be made on this subject;
As has been noted by another member in this thread, social discrimination as it exists is not used to empower anybody - it is not in the economic interests of the state or capitalist class to empower any particular social group. It is only used to disempower.
Mr. White Straight Christian Male represents a minority of people, and thus the working class, and is only the artifically emposed default by which negative comparisons are made to a number of other specific social groups, which combined, constitute most of (and disproportionately) the working class population. To identify the interests of the common working class person as those of the white straight christian man is to ensure that working class people never focus their identity upon their true defining characteristics, that is, the economic ones, and therefore to ensure division and a lack of a directed and relevant agenda for political action.
White people have nothing to feel 'guilty' for - they simply need to recognise who and what the true enemy of the working class is, and that includes recognising the ways in which they participate within social hierarchies which disadvantage other working class people. Unfortunately there are a few people in this thread itself who fail to do that, and I think that is certainly something for a leftist to feel guilty about.

[Stand Your Ground]

I am white, but I feel no pride in the countries my ancestors came from. The idea of nationalities are silly. I am human and you are human and that is all I need.
I agree. I hate when white people in America tell foreigners to go back where they came from when they're all European immigrants themselves.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Of course if she comes across like that in person people will not be friendly. That's because, as you are a perfect example of, there are a lot of men who find the suggestion that sexism exists to be somewhat offensive. Just the whiny preachings of a 'man hater'.
No, perhaps it's the experience of a woman who has respect for herself and therefore doesn't accept the obvious social disadvantage she has compared to men, which manifests itself in innumerable different ways, ranging from the subtle to the obvious, which also is dependent upon the perspective itself - as has already been mentioned, of course plenty of men don't notice the full presence of sexism in social situations. They're not negatively effected by them, and it may not be in their interests to recognise it.



She says she has experienced sexism while organizing, but she has not provided specific examples just some very subtle things that might be interpreted as sexist. Shit, subtle things that might be considered racist happen to me a lot, but I give people the benefit of the doubt. It also bugs me that she accuses me of sexism just because I question what she is saying, when I would really treat a man the same way. It seems to me that she wants to be treated "More equal" but whatever its cool.

To say that acknowledging sexism is to demonstrate some kind of 'prejudice' against men is just an obvious way to shift blame towards those women and to avoid full scrutiny of power relationships between social groups. Sexism exists within society; men are sexist. That's not prejudice - that's fact. I suggest you try and deal with it.
By the way, I am doubtful that the OP is that written from the perspective of a non-white person. Well, a non-white person or a reasonable person.
As has been said by others, nobody on the left, minus the odd idiot liberal, feels any sort of 'guilt' for being white. What they do, rather, is acknowledge the inherent social disadvantage non-white individuals have in society.

I acknowledge sexism, but to generalize men as sexist is stupid. I'm not trying to shift blame towards anyone, I'm just calling people out for being themselves explicitly sexist while railing against the assumed sexism of others, when really they could just be assholes to everyone. I'm like 25 per cent white, from my grandma so I guess you're right that I'm not completely non white, although I don't really look it. I have experienced racism both from whites and non whites, and I'm just trying to say that your average white guy shouldn't feel responsible or guilty because other members of his race fuck up.




This is, I feel, the key point to be made on this subject;
As has been noted by another member in this thread, social discrimination as it exists is not used to empower anybody - it is not in the economic interests of the state or capitalist class to empower any particular social group. It is only used to disempower.
Mr. White Straight Christian Male represents a minority of people, and thus the working class, and is only the artifically emposed default by which negative comparisons are made to a number of other specific social groups, which combined, constitute most of (and disproportionately) the working class population. To identify the interests of the common working class person as those of the white straight christian man is to ensure that working class people never focus their identity upon their true defining characteristics, that is, the economic ones, and therefore to ensure division and a lack of a directed and relevant agenda for political action.
White people have nothing to feel 'guilty' for - they simply need to recognise who and what the true enemy of the working class is, and that includes recognising the ways in which they participate within social hierarchies which disadvantage other working class people. Unfortunately there are a few people in this thread itself who fail to do that, and I think that is certainly something for a leftist to feel guilty about.

Well I guess, but for a white guy to not claim to be privileged seems a little bit ignorant, but if a white person was in my situation, going to my school and living in my neighborhood, he would probably have it worse. But it would probably even out with institutional racism and shit.

[Misanthrope]

I realize members that share the same race as I have committed atrocities throughout history. Every race has committed atrocities, I am not racist, I have never owned a slave ect. Why should I feel guilty?

[Merces]

Its actually reverse discrimination nowadays. Liberal media which is 95% of all media takes a dim view of any and by any I mean ANY slight comment that may point to any racial senitment to any minorities. The black supremacist Al Sharpton furthers this aggression by advocating hate and stirring crowds up to more violence and protests. But that's his bread and butter. I come from a background which didn't have any background in slavery( Even though slavery existed in African history long before the europeans came by). Even last summer when I was in Ghana, Africa slavery continues to be an issues amongst the africans. Instead of looking in the past isn't it more better to look to today. The Jewish nation continues to be the most discriminated race in the world and continue to suffer discrimination for the last thousands of years, and yet they are still able to succeed in vastly all aspects of life.

I'am white and very proud of my heritage.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/21/ap6681636.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQBdiBG6bIK0Rvi7Z8oYsUJc5uWwD99FSS8O0
http://rightsideva.blogspot.com/2009/01/white-construction-workers-need-not.html

[Durruti's Ghost]

I realize members that share the same race as I have committed atrocities throughout history. Every race has committed atrocities, I am not racist, I have never owned a slave ect. Why should I feel guilty?

You shouldn't. You should recognize that you occupy a privileged position as a result of years of racism, and you should do everything in your power to change that by fighting against racial dominance. But you shouldn't feel guilty. It's not your fault that you were born the way you were.

In the same way people born into the bourgeoisie can realize that they occupy a privileged position in society, give away their wealth, and join the working class in its struggle against capitalism ("Prince" Kropotkin comes to mind), so too can people born into the white race actively refuse (where possible) to accept the benefits conferred upon them by their color and join in the struggle against racism.

EDIT: Technically Kropotkin was born into the feudal ruling class, not the bourgeoisie. The point still stands; I just wanted to correct the error of fact I made there.

[Misanthrope]

You shouldn't. You should recognize that you occupy a privileged position as a result of years of racism, and you should do everything in your power to change that by fighting against racial dominance. But you shouldn't feel guilty. It's not your fault that you were born the way you were.


I think we should fight racism in every form, that includes affirmative action and the like. You are correct.

[AntifaAustralia]

As an expert in Anti-racism:lol: and a leftist:), i must say Racism is an easy subject.

Communism and all leftism is based on philosophy, science, and is against superstition! this is what makes us Hate RACISM.

My view on white guilt: it is neccessary to acknowledge through education, but not force. Ethnic Unity is key, but differences must be acknowledged to counter our racist culture, education is the key.

We commies, socialists and anarchists are beautiful IN-IGNORANT people.

[Pogue]

I don't think that's true. I think I like to debate with people and explore theoretical ideas. Aren't we all like that, if we spend time on these threads discussing politics?

I think white men are privileged regardless of their area and their life because society is structured in a way that gives them every opportunity and resource. And I'm responding to a denial of that because of your class status. If you look at it from a conflict-theory sociology perspective, you have much greater access to upward class mobility than anyone else. Now, upward class mobility is so rare you can almost call it a myth, and what many people see as upward class mobility is actually horizontal class mobility, however, if anyone makes it up a class, it's white men.

I'm writing a blog on why I don't hate men. Ya'll are welcome to read it if you like. I don't want to clog the thread defending/explaining my politics, it seems inappropriate.

I'm sorry, maybe its just from my personal experience in being lucky enough to have female role models who clearly are succesful, as well as having alot of black/asian mates, whom have never had any trouble beyond the usual troubles everyone has in terms of employment, I don't think I am 'priviliged' based on being a white male. I never said I was speaking for anyone but myself but I simply don't see this based on my experience because I know alot of intelligent and what I would call succesful (not in the bourgeoisie yuppie sense but in the sense of having a life you can take pride in, doing a job you are good at) women and seeing as I live in the most diverse area of the country I was educated and worked with people from all manner of backgrounds and I never saw myself as priviliged opposed to them and they never saw the same thing. This 'white privilige' has never been a reality in our life. I understand it in terms of the police but I am not, as I said, 'priviliged' because of my skin colour or my gender.

[ls]

I'm sorry, maybe its just from my personal experience in being lucky enough to have female role models who clearly are succesful, as well as having alot of black/asian mates, whom have never had any trouble beyond the usual troubles everyone has in terms of employment, I don't think I am 'priviliged' based on being a white male. I never said I was speaking for anyone but myself but I simply don't see this based on my experience because I know alot of intelligent and what I would call succesful (not in the bourgeoisie yuppie sense but in the sense of having a life you can take pride in, doing a job you are good at) women and seeing as I live in the most diverse area of the country I was educated and worked with people from all manner of backgrounds and I never saw myself as priviliged opposed to them and they never saw the same thing. This 'white privilige' has never been a reality in our life. I understand it in terms of the police but I am not, as I said, 'priviliged' because of my skin colour or my gender.

Fair enough, but would you agree that in a lot of other areas, people get discriminated against?

It's also fair to say, for example, you are more likely to be discriminated against in a more white-collar job in the city than you are working for the council, or in at a school (however I know that does happen sometimes too).

I think that RCB's post was the best so far:


But it isn't necessarily his advantage. For example, let's talk discrepancies in income, and just because the numbers are off the top of my head, I'll use the disparity between men and women (you'd expect a similar disparity between whites and minorities).

On average, women make 25% less than a man makes (even when they're doing the same job). However, it would be a mistake to think women are being payed less so men can get payed more. It's not to the capitalist self interest to take money from the women and give it to the men - it's irrational. Men don't really benefit per se from the income disparity between women.

I think that is a main point to be made, the police treat plenty of white people like pieces of shit too, it doesn't come across as an advantage to white people so much as a disadvantage to non-white people.

[Hiero]

What I was disputing is that I don't think I am 'priviliged'. I think that term is too strong and doesn't accurately portray the reality for my area and my life. I have recognised skin colour has an effect on people with regards to certain racist institutions. I think your one of those people who just loves an excuse to have a dig at someone, really.

Look up structural racism.

I am not going to argue on the grounds of what you think based on your subjective point of view. There is a whole body of theory on this sort of stuff.

Basically Western European societies cultural roots are obviously Western European. So all the institutions have a specific West European cultural root. So take in Australia, services like health were set up to provide health care to traditional patriarchal family in a surbaban or urban environment ie 5 people to a house, mother takes kids to doctor etc . So when say rural Aboriginal people try to accesses this services, if they happen to, there is a whole cultural wall between doctor and patient. So the doctor doesn't understand the poverty the patient may face, the large family/kin connections and the fact that this person may come from a 4 bedroom house with 10 or more living in this house which effects the spread of diseases. Or like I said they way the services are set up don't even appeal to non White, non Western Europeans, so they don't even have access to these facitlities.

So hence being white in Australia you have the privalege of having services and institutions or structures that are culturally adapted to your lifestyle and culturally appropriate. There is no taboo's that a breach in visit the local GP, where as other communities certian kin may not be able to visit a certian doctor.

I think that is the basis of how structural racism occurs. So you can apply this to alot of things, policing, the education system and how grades work or IQ test.

But then this is the difference between a structural/institional analysis of society compared to "what I think" analysis.

[Invariance]

I think that...the concept of ‘male privilege’ is problematic, definitionally, and in applicability.

In the Marxist sense social oppression is related to economic oppression – they’re intrinsically related... all females do not face structural discrimination because Marxists recognize that class is key to power relations; bourgeoisie females don’t simply face the same ‘hurdles’ that working class females do – their wealth allows them to side-step those hurdles or remain oblivious to them.

Likewise, not all men are ‘privileged’ owing to their status as men; homosexual men, not having wives or children, cannot enjoy the benefits that flow from when a heterosexual man has children or a wife (i.e having a domestic servant and the power relations which flow from being the sole wage-earner), and they also face other discrimination owing to their sexuality.

Hence, at the very least it’s simplistic or misleading to say that men enjoy privilege...because that pretends that men are a homogenous group – they aren’t. Class matters.

I also think that the use of the term privilege is awkward because it’s typically seen as a specific entitlement or immunity, conferring some sort of enforceable legal right. E.g. the privilege against self-incrimination or lawyers with legal professional privilege. That’s problematic socially because just because one group is disadvantaged versus the other does not mean that the other group enjoys some sort of positive entitlement or right.

Further, there exists even within women (apart from classes in the Marxist sense) ‘classes’ and ‘subclasses.’ E.g. unmarried women with children are far more likely to be impoverished than unmarried women without children. Does that mean that unmarried women without children have a privilege? These are the sorts of questions the concept faces. (Edit, somewhat being the devil's advocate here. I think the term is often appropriate in certain contexts but it does face some limitations in my opinion).

[zerozerozerominusone]

So it seems a lot of white leftists feel that they are "Guilty of being white". They seem to feel responsible for what other people of their race did or are doing now to repress other races. I think this is dumb

It is not only dumb, it is incredibly self-absorbed and conceited. Taking this position makes it all about oneself. It is pathetic.


, and the only white people should have white guilt are my neighborhood police force, my boss and my government officials, as they are the ones who are actually continuing the legacy of racial discrimination in this country.

Can you precisely define "racial discrimination"? The problem I see with such a term is that it is rarely if ever defined such that it serves any purpose other than to be unnecessarily inflamatory. The word "discrimination" is so horrifically misused these days as to be frightful.

Question: if I am producing a film of, say, antebellum slavery in the USA and I very purposefully hire a white actor to play the 'mazzah, I have clearly discriminated against all non-white actors in the universe on a racial basis. Would you consider this objectionable? If so, what would you do about it, if you were king?


And be proud of your heritage, white people. Theres nothing wrong with being white.

Now there is a newsflash. That was... erm.... mighty white of you. ;)


Another thing white guilt leftists do is act like non white people can never be racist.

The worst racism I've ever personally witnessed was by black people against white. In this, they are in general the biggest hypocrites on the planet.


True, there is no institutional racism against white people,

This is quite untrue. So-called "affirmative action" is bald-faced anti-white racism and it is so very institutionalized.


but if you're white and you come to my neighborhood, you are going to get some shit from some black people, maybe the gangsters in the neighborhood will look at you as an easier target or start shit with you in the street or folks will trust you less.

This may be so in some places (dunno where your block is), but I lived and schooled in places like Harlem and the South Bronx and didn't have the trouble you mention. Of course, being a good NYC boy I had the crazy on at all times when outdoors, which is part of why nobody fucked with me.

It was interesting to note that in the 70s and 80s the talking head news outlets were going on and on about how poor race relations between white, black, and hispanic people were in NY and constantly implied that a major race war was just around the next bend. This was an enormous load of crap. With few exceptions, everywhere I went I was met with smiles and outstretched hands. I had a few black ones call me "cracker" and the sort, but I paid it no mind as long as they stayed on their porches. They'd have gotten shot otherwise, but that necessity never arose. On the whole, people either ignored me, as is the general case between people in NYC, or they greeted me warmly. I would say that race relations are worse today than 30 years ago precisley because of the dumbass lefties who imposed all this PC crap on the world where people can no longer speak their minds freely. Look at places like England and France where mere words can earn a sentence of hard prison time. It is ridiculous. If some stupid shit wants to question the "holocaust", who gives a damn? If they are full of shit, it will come out eventually and the world can go back to ignoring them. Such reactionary postures only serve to make people wonder what is [I]really[I] going on.

[/quote] Some of you will say "Oh, their mistrust of white people is legitimate, white people have oppressed them in the past", but if you're going to argue that then in your train of thought it is legitimate for white people to mistrust latinos and blacks because of our history of violence and robbery against white people.[/quote]

Well stated. I would add that christians would also still be justified in lynching jews for the inherited guilt of having murdered their savior. As this example clearly illustrates, the idea is ludicrous on its face. I never owned a slave and I have not been unfair to people. I don't get on anyone because of race - I get on them about things they are able to choose, such as their attitudes and behaviors, if I get on them about anything at all. To those who tell me I owe them something because I'm white and they are black or whatever, I very politely and warmly show them my middle finger. One thing I don't go for is bullshit and when some black asshole (or install any other adjectival class-descriptor you care to, including "white") attempts to sandbag me based on this whole tacit guilt trip, I happily provide them with surprises they never could have anticipated in a lifetime of imagining. Crap is crap and I don't give a damn whence it issues. When it is shoveled my way, I take care of business without hesitation or equivocation.


Obviously, only a few of us rob and are violent, and only a few white people oppress minorities. And if you claim that minorities can't be racist, I invite you to be a white kid in my school. White kids take so much shit just from ignorant assholes for their race, I feel bad for them. In conclusion, my advice for white guilt leftists would be to stop hating your race and feel proud of your heritage, and actually treat everyone equally. Because really I'm kind of sick of you guys treating us "minorities" like we can get away with racism just because of the color of my skin, I'd rather be treated as an equal.

Your position is uncommon and will earn you no friends with many. The good news is you don't need such people as friends.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Marixsm 2009 taught me I am part of the racist white working class. I'm not guilty cos its inevitable cos i'm an imperialist member of the labour aristocracy.

This is, of course, a joke.

Right?

[Pogue]

Fair enough, but would you agree that in a lot of other areas, people get discriminated against?

It's also fair to say, for example, you are more likely to be discriminated against in a more white-collar job in the city than you are working for the council, or in at a school (however I know that does happen sometimes too).

I think that RCB's post was the best so far:



I think that is a main point to be made, the police treat plenty of white people like pieces of shit too, it doesn't come across as an advantage to white people so much as a disadvantage to non-white people.

Like I said I never said there wasn't racism about but to call me 'priviliged' for being white presupposes I am almost a class above my non-white friends, but quite simply I am not and this is not a reality for us.

[Pogue]

Look up structural racism.

I am not going to argue on the grounds of what you think based on your subjective point of view. There is a whole body of theory on this sort of stuff.

Basically Western European societies cultural roots are obviously Western European. So all the institutions have a specific West European cultural root. So take in Australia, services like health were set up to provide health care to traditional patriarchal family in a surbaban or urban environment ie 5 people to a house, mother takes kids to doctor etc . So when say rural Aboriginal people try to accesses this services, if they happen to, there is a whole cultural wall between doctor and patient. So the doctor doesn't understand the poverty the patient may face, the large family/kin connections and the fact that this person may come from a 4 bedroom house with 10 or more living in this house which effects the spread of diseases. Or like I said they way the services are set up don't even appeal to non White, non Western Europeans, so they don't even have access to these facitlities.

So hence being white in Australia you have the privalege of having services and institutions or structures that are culturally adapted to your lifestyle and culturally appropriate. There is no taboo's that a breach in visit the local GP, where as other communities certian kin may not be able to visit a certian doctor.

I think that is the basis of how structural racism occurs. So you can apply this to alot of things, policing, the education system and how grades work or IQ test.

But then this is the difference between a structural/institional analysis of society compared to "what I think" analysis.

I don't think anyone on this board is in a position to tell me my position in society, I know it and I know what I experience. And I don't think I am 'priviliged' based on my skin colour - this does not cohere to my everyday reality no matter how much people on this board want to tell me it does. I guess that makes me quite lucky to live in an area lacking in loads of structural racism. I cannot think of a single circumstance in which my being white has put me in a priviliged position over my non white friends. When I got my job, an Asian guy was hired the same day as me, same wages, same hours. When I lost my job, a whole bunch of other people lost theirs too, of all skin colours. When I'm at college and school before it I have never experienced racism or 'privilige'. I think that if people want to tell me that where I live I am priviliged for being white they very much lack an understanding of my area, but I think I am much better informed on the situation here than anyone else on this forum.

[gorillafuck]

I think we should fight racism in every form, that includes affirmative action and the like. You are correct.
You mean you think we should fight against affirmative action?:confused:

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Yeah affirmative action isn't racist. I'm not sure I agree with it as an institution, but it is just there to even shit out in my opinion.

[Pogue]

You mean you think we should fight against affirmative action?:confused:

I think its patronising towards the people who its geared towards and I would like a situation where its not needed.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

This may be so in some places (dunno where your block is), but I lived and schooled in places like Harlem and the South Bronx and didn't have the trouble you mention. Of course, being a good NYC boy I had the crazy on at all times when outdoors, which is part of why nobody fucked with me.

It was interesting to note that in the 70s and 80s the talking head news outlets were going on and on about how poor race relations between white, black, and hispanic people were in NY and constantly implied that a major race war was just around the next bend. This was an enormous load of crap. With few exceptions, everywhere I went I was met with smiles and outstretched hands. I had a few black ones call me "cracker" and the sort, but I paid it no mind as long as they stayed on their porches. They'd have gotten shot otherwise, but that necessity never arose. On the whole, people either ignored me, as is the general case between people in NYC, or they greeted me warmly. I would say that race relations are worse today than 30 years ago precisley because of the dumbass lefties who imposed all this PC crap on the world where people can no longer speak their minds freely. Look at places like England and France where mere words can earn a sentence of hard prison time. It is ridiculous. If some stupid shit wants to question the "holocaust", who gives a damn? If they are full of shit, it will come out eventually and the world can go back to ignoring them. Such reactionary postures only serve to make people wonder what is [I]really[I] going on.

Some of you will say "Oh, their mistrust of white people is legitimate, white people have oppressed them in the past", but if you're going to argue that then in your train of thought it is legitimate for white people to mistrust latinos and blacks because of our history of violence and robbery against white people.[/quote]

Well stated. I would add that christians would also still be justified in lynching jews for the inherited guilt of having murdered their savior. As this example clearly illustrates, the idea is ludicrous on its face. I never owned a slave and I have not been unfair to people. I don't get on anyone because of race - I get on them about things they are able to choose, such as their attitudes and behaviors, if I get on them about anything at all. To those who tell me I owe them something because I'm white and they are black or whatever, I very politely and warmly show them my middle finger. One thing I don't go for is bullshit and when some black asshole (or install any other adjectival class-descriptor you care to, including "white") attempts to sandbag me based on this whole tacit guilt trip, I happily provide them with surprises they never could have anticipated in a lifetime of imagining. Crap is crap and I don't give a damn whence it issues. When it is shoveled my way, I take care of business without hesitation or equivocation.



Your position is uncommon and will earn you no friends with many. The good news is you don't need such people as friends.[/QUOTE]

When I say you will get shit, its not like you will be an interracial couple in the south in the 50s, but if you pass some of the dudes drinking 40's on the corner or whatever, they will give you shit. Also, you're from the north where race relations are probably better. At school a lot of black kids do pick on the white kids. And you're right that my position earned my o friends with many. Apparently I'm not really latino, I'm actually white. This is kind of a bummer, cause in real life people sometimes call me "white" cause I am into punk rock and skateboard, which are both stereotypically "white". So don't even bother with that shit, I've heard it all before. And I don't think I know alot about life, I just have an opinion about what I do know.

[zerozerozerominusone]

[QUOTE=War Cry;1499783]
I think white men are privileged regardless of their area and their life because society is structured in a way that gives them every opportunity and resource./QUOTE]

Now there's a steaming pile for you.

You come on down to Appalachia and I will show you just how full of bald-faced racism your statement is. Good grief - go buy a clue - you can get them cheap in a box of cracker jack.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Yeah affirmative action isn't racist.

It is highly racist. It is the new and glittery institutionalized racism.


I'm not sure I agree with it as an institution, but it is just there to even shit out in my opinion.

Even what shit out? Who determines what shit to iron out and how? How is it fair that more qualified people get screwed on opportunities when quotas say some incompetent must be given the position?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

But I'm saying I don't think there is enough to constitute privilige. I don't see how I am more priviliged than say, my asian friend. I think class is more important.

I suppose it depends on the social context or situation. For example, here in the U.S., housing discrimination against blacks and hispanics is quite common. Insofar as anti-discrimination laws are stringently appplied, tendencies toward discrimination are sometimes undermined. However, anti-discrimnation laws aren't enforced strongly by the authorities in several cases. This opens the door to underhanded business practices by real estate agencies because contrary to what many right-wing economists aver, discrimination is sometimes quite lucrative.

Now, are you honestly going to say that whites don't have an advantage in this situation? And couldn't we say that this advantage privileges them to higher chances of attaining better housing? And if you don't believe this is a privilege, could you please expound on what exactly constitues a privilege in your opinion?

[zerozerozerominusone]

When I say you will get shit, its not like you will be an interracial couple in the south in the 50s, but if you pass some of the dudes drinking 40's on the corner or whatever, they will give you shit. Also, you're from the north where race relations are probably better. At school a lot of black kids do pick on the white kids. And you're right that my position earned my o friends with many. Apparently I'm not really latino, I'm actually white. This is kind of a bummer, cause in real life people sometimes call me "white" cause I am into punk rock and skateboard, which are both stereotypically "white". So don't even bother with that shit, I've heard it all before. And I don't think I know alot about life, I just have an opinion about what I do know.

You're a trip. I'm an honorary Puerto Rican myself. My two little brothers are both PR and their moms took care of me when I was younger. Lots of rice and beans. One mom died, the other is in PR now. I sure miss her cooking. :)

[zerozerozerominusone]

You mean you think we should fight against affirmative action?:confused:

In a word: hell yes. As someone else mentioned it is condescendinga nd demeaning to certain groups. The subtext there is that group X need affirmative action because they are too fucking inept to earn it honestly. AA is a clusterfuck no matter how you slice and dice it.

When I hire people, it is based solely on what is best for my team. If the white guy is better than the black, he gets the job and better luck next time for the other. If the black guy is best, he gets the booby prize and the other gets to try again another day. I have never once obeyed an AA quota. I refuse and will continue to. I hire the best people for my jobs, not the token in order to prove what a nice cracker I am. Screw that noise.

And on that issue the government can kiss my sphincter.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't think anyone on this board is in a position to tell me my position in society, I know it and I know what I experience. And I don't think I am 'priviliged' based on my skin colour - this does not cohere to my everyday reality no matter how much people on this board want to tell me it does. I guess that makes me quite lucky to live in an area lacking in loads of structural racism. I cannot think of a single circumstance in which my being white has put me in a priviliged position over my non white friends. When I got my job, an Asian guy was hired the same day as me, same wages, same hours. When I lost my job, a whole bunch of other people lost theirs too, of all skin colours. When I'm at college and school before it I have never experienced racism or 'privilige'. I think that if people want to tell me that where I live I am priviliged for being white they very much lack an understanding of my area, but I think I am much better informed on the situation here than anyone else on this forum.

I think this article is instructive:


Analysis: Sid Patel

Hit hardest by the jobs crisis

Sid Patel analyzes the government's statistics to show that some groups of workers are suffering even more pain from the recession.

July 14, 2009
WHILE SOME mainstream commentators are peddling talk of the recession "bottoming out" or even sprouting "green shoots," the June employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed what millions of people feel--there's no end in sight for workers and the poor.
Another 467,000 people lost their jobs last month, the official unemployment rate edged up to 9.5 percent, and it's all but certain it will hit double digits within a few more months--and stay there through 2010.
Whatever "green shoots" Wall Street may be anticipating, the outlook for people who work for a living is grim.
"I regard all this talk about how the recession is maybe going to end, all the talk about deficits and inflation, to be the equivalent of telling Americans, 'You are just going to have to tough it out," Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute told the Washington Post. "But we're looking at persistent unemployment that is going to be extraordinarily damaging to many communities. There is a ton of pain in the pipeline."
Plus, the cumulative effects of racism and sexism mean that some groups of workers went into the recession in a much more precarious position--and they feel that "ton of pain" in an even sharper way.
While June's climb to 9.5 percent unemployment is a national crisis, African American unemployment has been at least 7 percent for more than 30 years, even in the midst of the "full employment" boom in the late 1990s.
In reality, Black America has faced tougher economic times for decades, and now they're getting worse, with a large proportion of initial job losses hitting industries where Black workers are concentrated--construction and manufacturing. The Obama administration's bailout of the auto industry--which imposes tough conditions on the United Auto Workers union--has also decimated one of the few sources for decent-paying union jobs for Black people.
Even in white collar and professional work, African Americans are being hit hardest by layoffs because job discrimination kept them out of these fields for so long--and the "last hired, first fired" method is having its usual racist effect.
The Associated Press interviewed Duke University Professor William Darity about this phenomenon. "Blacks and Latinos are relative latecomers to the professional world," Darity said, "so they are necessarily the most vulnerable. We don't have those older roots to anchor us in the professional world; we don't have the same nexus of contacts, the same kind of seniority."
Currently, official Black unemployment stands at 14.7 percent. The last time the overall jobless rate hit that level was in the early 1930s, during the Great Depression.

...AS STATE governments facing budget crises, particularly in California and New York, continue to make devastating cuts to an already tattered social safety net, conditions for poor women and Blacks--who disproportionately rely on welfare services--will become even more desperate. The budget cuts are not equal opportunity--they crash down hardest on the downtrodden.

...But for people of color and women, it has been particularly harsh, and any progressive proposals for economic relief must include special attention and resources for these groups.


Link to full article: http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/14/hit-hardest-by-the-crisis


I think its patronising towards the people who its geared towards and I would like a situation where its not needed.

This argument is almost solipsism.

In reality, there is structural racism and other forms of oppression which must be dealt with. Even a new revolutionary society would need to address these issues- they don't simply vanish by advocating a collective property and class struggle. Not at all.

[PRC-UTE]

I suppose it depends on the social context or situation. For example, here in the U.S., housing discrimination against blacks and hispanics is quite common. Insofar as anti-discrimination laws are stringently appplied, tendencies toward discrimination are sometimes undermined. However, anti-discrimnation laws aren't enforced strongly by the authorities in several cases. This opens the door to underhanded business practices by real estate agencies because contrary to what many right-wing economists aver, discrimination is sometimes quite lucrative.

Now, are you honestly going to say that whites don't have an advantage in this situation? And couldn't we say that this advantage privileges them to higher chances of attaining better housing? And if you don't believe this is a privilege, could you please expound on what exactly constitues a privilege in your opinion?

It's similar in Ireland. In CAtholic parts of Belfast, it's not uncommon to find four generations living in one small place together. In Protestant areas, there are many empty houses. Yet homeless Catholics cannot move into them. This is considered normal in much of Belfast.

[9]

I think some white, working class males on the forum are taking issue with the word "privileged" because they are working class and they don't feel like their life is defined in any way by "privilege". So perhaps the word choice is really what is problematic here? I assumed most on the left (including white males) recognized white male "privilege", but perhaps, again, the word choice is causing confusion. What we - at least most of us, I think - are trying to say when we talk about "white male privilege" is that white males are free from the racial and sexual institutionalized discrimination that plagues non-whites and non-males. We are not insinuating that you (white males) have lives "full of privilege", we are simply referring to the fact that you (white males) are not on the receiving end of any institutionalized forms of discrimination. Sorry if this is redundant.

[PRC-UTE]

So it seems a lot of white leftists feel that they are "Guilty of being white". They seem to feel responsible for what other people of their race did or are doing now to repress other races. I think this is dumb, and the only white people should have white guilt are my neighborhood police force, my boss and my government officials, as they are the ones who are actually continuing the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And be proud of your heritage, white people. Theres nothing wrong with being white. I'm proud of my latino heritage, that doesn't mean that I think I'm better than anyone else, it just means I appreciate my culture and everything. Another thing white guilt leftists do is act like non white people can never be racist. True, there is no institutional racism against white people, but if you're white and you come to my neighborhood, you are going to get some shit from some black people, maybe the gangsters in the neighborhood will look at you as an easier target or start shit with you in the street or folks will trust you less. Some of you will say "Oh, their mistrust of white people is legitimate, white people have oppressed them in the past", but if you're going to argue that then in your train of thought it is legitimate for white people to mistrust latinos and blacks because of our history of violence and robbery against white people. Obviously, only a few of us rob and are violent, and only a few white people oppress minorities. And if you claim that minorities can't be racist, I invite you to be a white kid in my school. White kids take so much shit just from ignorant assholes for their race, I feel bad for them. In conclusion, my advice for white guilt leftists would be to stop hating your race and feel proud of your heritage, and actually treat everyone equally. Because really I'm kind of sick of you guys treating us "minorities" like we can get away with racism just because of the color of my skin, I'd rather be treated as an equal.

Have you ever seen someone in the gutter who was injured or ill, and couldn't get up? Did you help them?

If you didn't because it might inconvenience you, you should feel guilty.

to feel guilty simply for being better off is just a feeling, doesn't matter. What matters is how you respond to the situation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think some white, working class males on the forum are taking issue with the word "privileged" because they are working class and they don't feel like their life is defined in any way by "privilege". So perhaps the word choice is really what is problematic here? I assumed most on the left (including white males) recognized white male "privilege", but perhaps, again, the word choice is causing confusion. What we - at least most of us, I think - are trying to say when we talk about "white male privilege" is that white males are free from the racial and sexual institutionalized discrimination that plagues non-whites and non-males. We are not insinuating that you (white males) have lives "full of privilege", we are simply referring to the fact that you (white males) are not on the receiving end of any institutionalized forms of discrimination. Sorry if this is redundant.

I fully support defending affirmative action here in the US. I also support reparations (in the form of large government funding of poor black areas) when demanded by students and black people.

However I think this "privileged" idea is post-modern crap. I think we need to flip it and say, no, there is not "white/male/hetero privilage" but there is "minority/female/LGBT oppression" on top of the oppression and exploitation of all members iof the working class.

I always think is it really a privilege to not get ripped-off by home-loans because your skin makes you a bad risk? Is it really a privilage to not get jumped or dennounced by right-wing christians for holding your lover's hand in public?

"White Priviledge" in my mind is like the people who say socialism means we have to give up our appliences and Playsatations to make everyone "equal". Or liberals who claim that "we have too much" in the US - maybe you have too much, but I don't have enough of anything besides debt and an empty hole where my health care would be in a rational fucking world.

Anyway, "equality through poverty" is BS, we should want revolutions that allow everyone to have a Playstation and HD TV (or better yet, new housing developments that build in community movie theaters so that all my commune neighbors get to hear my funny comments during tv!) and headphones!

It's the same with fighting opression - who want's equality if it means the cops beat everyone equally - what low expectations we have these days - how about equality where there are no cops beating anyone - or no cops at all!

[9]

I fully support defending affirmative action here in the US. I also support reparations (in the form of large government funding of poor black areas) when demanded by students and black people.

However I think this "privileged" idea is post-modern crap. I think we need to flip it and say, no, there is not "white/male/hetero privilage" but there is "minority/female/LGBT oppression" on top of the oppression and exploitation of all members iof the working class.

I always think is it really a privilege to not get ripped-off by home-loans because your skin makes you a bad risk? Is it really a privilage to not get jumped or dennounced by right-wing christians for holding your lover's hand in public?

"White Priviledge" in my mind is like the people who say socialism means we have to give up our appliences and Playsatations to make everyone "equal". Or liberals who claim that "we have too much" in the US - maybe you have too much, but I don't have enough of anything besides debt and an empty hole where my health care would be in a rational fucking world.

Anyway, "equality through poverty" is BS, we should want revolutions that allow everyone to have a Playstation and HD TV (or better yet, new housing developments that build in community movie theaters so that all my commune neighbors get to hear my funny comments during tv!) and headphones!

It's the same with fighting opression - who want's equality if it means the cops beat everyone equally - what low expectations we have these days - how about equality where there are no cops beating anyone - or no cops at all!

I am not sure what specifically I said that you disagree with, as I was merely pointing out that "white male privilege" is probably not worded well, and you seem to respond to this with vilifying the use of the phrase "white, male privilege".
I am also not sure how pointing out the fact that white males are not on the receiving end of institutionalized discrimination means one wants "everyone to be equally oppressed".
You seem to be getting overly-defensive.:confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh, no. I meant to expand on your idea that the opposition to "white privilege" might be because of the term that implies that white workers are "privileged" even though most white workers recognize some degree of exploitation and oppression in their own lives.

This is why I reject the term and when talking about racism to people try to explain that it's not white privilege, but black oppression.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I was not attacking or arguing against you - I was flowing off what you said.

What can I say, It's the 7th hour of my shift tonight - it's Saturday and a quarter to 11pm - I'm just typing and not really organizing my thoughts beforehand.

[9]

Oh, no. I meant to expand on your idea that the opposition to "white privilege" might be because of the term that implies that white workers are "privileged" even though most white workers recognize some degree of exploitation and oppression in their own lives.

This is why I reject the term and when talking about racism to people try to explain that it's not white privilege, but black oppression.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I was not attacking or arguing against you - I was flowing off what you said.

What can I say, It's the 7th hour of my shift tonight - it's Saturday and a quarter to 11pm - I'm just typing and not really organizing my thoughts beforehand.

Haha, I got it now, its cool.

[Led Zeppelin]

There's a lot of latent racism in this thread veiled behind pseudo-racist right-wing arguments, which surprises me a little (but not a lot).

One guy says; "Affirmative action is racism itself! We don't need to help ethnic minorities because they have to deal with institutionalized racism and had to deal with it for the past few centuries! They must lift themselves up by their bootstraps!"

Then goes on to add the typical "I'm not racist, my best friend is black" line by mentioning that he's "an honorary Puerto Rican, lots of rice and beans".

It didn't occur to him that no one here knows nor cares about what ethnicity he is, because we're judging his posts by what they are, not by who the author of them is, which is a total irrelevancy.

And if we do judge his posts by their "merits", then we come to the conclusion that he has got no fucking clue about what he's talking about. For example, on the "it's condescending and demeaning towards minorities" crap:


Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.

Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).
Link (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)

Then he goes on to spread the typical right-wing myth about Affirmative Action which says that supporters of it want to hire minorities over white people even if the latter are substantitally more qualified or the former are unqualified:


Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.

Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:

1. Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Survey research suggests that three-quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995e).

2. Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.

3. Selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount.

4. Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Bureau of National Affairs, 1979).

Even though these selection procedures occasionally blend into one another (due in part to the difficulty of comparing incommensurable records), a few general observations can be made. First, of the four different procedures, the selection of women and minority members among equal or roughly comparable candidates has the greatest public support, adheres most closely to popular conceptions of fairness, and reduces the chances that affirmative action beneficiaries will be perceived as unqualified or undeserving (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994). Second, the selection of women and minority members among unequal candidates -- used routinely in college admissions -- has deeply divided the nation (with the strongest opposition coming from White males and conservative voters.) And finally, the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. By distinguishing among these four different selection procedures, it becomes clear that opposition to stronger selection procedures need not imply opposition to milder ones.

Some writers have criticized affirmative action as a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality. Yet affirmative action was never proposed as a cure-all solution to inequality. Rather, it was intended only to redress discrimination in hiring and academic admissions. In assessing the value of affirmative action, the central question is merely this: In the absence of sweeping societal reforms -- unlikely to take place any time soon -- does affirmative action help counteract the continuing injustice caused by discrimination? The research record suggests, unequivocally, that it does.
Link (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)

Of course I can quote numbers and statistics proving that Affirmative Action does work. You can find them all here: Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)

The problem is, once again, with a level playing field. A black person and a white person with the same qualifications were and are not hired in equal percentages, or admitted to colleges with equal percentages. That is the reality of the world, which may be different in the little non-racist and non-sexist Utopian bubble that you live in (which it most likely isn't, by the way), but that does not detract from the realness of the real world.

Now if we are talking about hiring those who are less qualified over those who are more qualified based on race; has this not been occurring for the past few centuries and even today on a daily basis? When it happens with white people, it isn't condescending or demeaning to them, right? No, when it happens to them they sure do enjoy it. When it happens to blacks or other minorities suddenly it becomes a huge burden of shame on their shoulders (which is proven by the numbers to be untrue).

That is, as the above quote shows, not the point. Rarely does it occur that minorities who are less qualified are picked over white people who are substantially more qualified. When it does occur it incurs the wrath of "conservative voters, white males" and you.

Given the fact that this occurs and has occurred on a daily basis for centuries to white people, no sane person would see this as anything other than "bending the stick" the other way to create a level playing field. But putting that aside, most people who support Affirmative Action do not support this (because they are liberals), so attacking it as if it is the essence of the policy is a straw man, and quite a badly made one at that.

The ridiculous individualism of some anarchists comes forward here too. They individualize themselves and see themselves apart from society in general, and think to themselves; "Well, hey, wait a minute, I'm a male and white but I don't have any privilege 'cause I'm an anarchist! My personal experience shows that I'm not privileged!", "When I hire someone I'm gonna hire the best person for the job! I'm not gonna look at race, 'cause that's just stupid! Fuck the state!".

As if the rest of the world and all its people and power-structures and the corresponding racism and sexism are non-existent.

It should be an embarrassment that even common liberals and social-democrats are more socially progressive on this issue than they are.

[Module]

I can't even believe that somebody here is making the argument that affirmitive action is 'patronising'. So, that presumes that non-white people and women have a lesser chance of employment due to legitimate circumstances, that they have the responsibility to rectify!

[pastradamus]

But that wasn't really what I was saying with that part of my post. I wasn't referring to the gains white workers have attained in the most advanced capitalist nations (and that making them privileged), I was referring to the most advanced capitalist nations being predominately ruled by white people, and that power exerting itself throughout the globe as a result. That is the explanation behind the commonly called "white powerstructure". It is a materialist analysis of it.

Its true that White workers are privilaged in that regard. But Never the less are still Workers and should not be seperated from their 3rd World comrades based on such trivial matters such as etnicity.

[Pogue]

I can't even believe that somebody here is making the argument that affirmitive action is 'patronising'. So, that presumes that non-white people and women have a lesser chance of employment due to legitimate circumstances, that they have the responsibility to rectify!

I think it is patronising. I think it shows a patronising attempt to try and deal with racism by putting non white people into a position of victim status. I think people should get a job on merit, if theres competition for it.

[Invariance]

Opposing affirmative action on the basis that it is 'patronizing' to the individual because it doesn't address their 'work merit' (yah, because capitalism obviously operates on the economic law that those who do the most work receive the greatest reward!) or that it is 'racist', comes from such a pathetic liberal view that it's barely worth criticizing. No doubt all affirmative action aims at is trying to increase representation of oppressed minorities in certain institutions. It is analogous to putting a band aid on a gunshot wound; it addresses racism in a shallow and myopic way, rather than addressing the real roots which demand affirmative action in the first place (which capitalism is unwilling to do so because of the benefits that division amongst workers gives to the ruling class). But criticizing it on the basis that it undermines fairness amongst workers (which, sorry, doesn't exist in the first place) or that it is racist (nope, sorry, white men don't face structural discrimination and you make a mockery of racism if you call affirmative action racist) is just liberal trash.

[ls]

Opposing affirmative action on the basis that it is 'patronizing' to the individual because it doesn't address their 'work merit' (yah, because capitalism obviously operates on the economic law that those who do the most work receive the greatest reward!) or that it is 'racist', comes from such a pathetic liberal view

Who do you think implements these laws? :rolleyes: It's an instrument not too unlike the welfare state, used by the bourgeoisie to make their ways of dividing workers look a little bit more fair, it's basically saying to your face we discriminate against you and now we're trying to cover it up.

Why are we rallying around such a pathetically liberal piece of shit anyway? Sorry but this is ridiculousness, 'positive discrimination' has no place in a revolutionary society.

It's kind of telling that it's a shit law when the police use it on a common basis, just to recruit people into a racist institution which is going to turn them into lumpen scum but also get them discriminated against heavily.

[Invariance]

Who do you think implements these laws?Who do you think implements criminal laws which prohibit murder, rape and so on? Who do you think implements and enforces laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, disability, age, race, religion etc? Sorry, but your ahistorical and moralistic bogey man of the bourgeoisie state doesn't cut it for this discussion.


It's an instrument not too unlike the welfare state, used by the bourgeoisie to make their ways of dividing workers look a little bit more fair, it's basically saying to your face we discriminate against you and now we're trying to cover it up.And any communist worth mentioning would fully support welfare programs, minimum wage laws and any other programs which attempt to alleviate the worst consequences of poverty. Now, do you think that minimum wage laws are discriminatory because they don't look at the 'merit of the worker' and are, instead, state-enforced standards - ones which took workers decades of struggle and thousands and thousands of lives to achieve? Do you think they should be abolished because of that? Well guess what, the basis of your argument is no different from those who advocate minarchism or any other anarcho-capitalist ideology. To Marxists, material conditions matter, not liberal-philosophical axioms which pretend that we are all equal and that therefore anything which in law upsets that equality is therefore 'racist.'


Why are we rallying around such a pathetically liberal piece of shit anyway? Sorry but this is ridiculousness, 'positive discrimination' has no place in a revolutionary society.This had absolutely nothing to do with a revolutionary society, but a capitalist society on which the basis of HLVS argued (unless you think that in a communist society workers will compete for jobs).

[Led Zeppelin]

Who do you think implements these laws? :rolleyes:

The class who was forced to implement them under pressure from below by the working-class.

You know, the same class that was forced to concede the 8-hour workday, universal healthcare (in western-Europe and other places), child-labour laws, universal suffrage, universal schooling, ending Jim Crow etc. etc. due to working-class pressure from below.

But you're right, we should oppose all that because it was a form of appeasement that hides the real horrors of capitalism from us. :rolleyes:

Now that is something that deserves rollings eyes.


Why are we rallying around such a pathetically liberal piece of shit anyway?

For the same reason we "rally" around other progressive demands such as the 8-hour workday and universal healthcare.

The conservative bourgeoisie agrees with you that those are "liberal pieces of shit", but that only shows whose side you're on regarding those issues.

You know who else agrees with you on Affirmative Action specifically and recently came out against it with the exact same arguments you are using?

This guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44gIZiHFOPo


It's kind of telling that it's a shit law when the police use it on a common basis

The police also benefits from minimum wage laws, from the 8-hour workday, from universal healthcare, from progressive tax laws, anti-sexist laws which provide for maternity leaves, ending Jim Crow and slavery thereby providing them with more possible recruits to begin with etc. etc.

What a totally inept, irrelevant, meaningless "argument".

It borders on the "don't go to McDonalds or use [insert commodity produced by capitalist company] because it's run by evil Capitalists!" lifestyleist nonsense.

EDIT: I of course agree with Freefocus's post below and Invariance's post above, in that Affirmative Action is merely a band-aid "solution", just as all reforms are such under capitalism. They have a transient character in that when working-class pressure diminishes, the temporary rights granted to them can and will be taken away. These are short-term half-assed solutions to long-term deeply rooted problems, which requires a complete solution, if you will. That solution being social revolution, but as was said on the previous page: "In the absence of sweeping societal reforms -- unlikely to take place any time soon -- do these reforms help working-class people in their daily lives? The research record (and I would add common sense) suggests, unequivocally, that it does."

[FreeFocus]

Its true that White workers are privilaged in that regard. But Never the less are still Workers and should not be seperated from their 3rd World comrades based on such trivial matters such as etnicity.

When the majority of workers in the First World stop supporting imperialism and wars against the "towelheads" and "terrorists," and when they finally have a problem with their beloved cheap goods at Wal-Mart being produced by what amounts to slave labor, then we can have a serious discussion about "smashing the bourgeoisie and the state" together.

LZ's post on the last page was basically the post I wanted to type up before, but this is particularly frustrating because we shouldn't have to do something like this on RevLeft. I stopped posting on a lot of other forums because I can't stand right-wing or even liberal rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is that whites have not, especially outside of Europe, had to put up with the forms of oppression others have - slavery, ethnic cleansing, imperialism (no whites outside of Europe have experienced ill-effects from imperialism - on the contrary, they live in settler states). If you read Our Enemies in Blue (I'll probably put some quotes from the book in here later), the author Kristian Williams traces the origin of the institution of police back to slave patrols. Land-owning, slave-holding whites in the 1700s Carolinas, bringing black codes up from Barbados, found it to be a good move to allow any white person (including poor) to partake in the slave system by capturing runaways. If you look at the lead-up to the Civil War, poor southern whites didn't make common cause with slaves or free African-Americans because they figured that as lowly as they were, "negroes were still below" them. At every turn this pattern has simply repeated, but the world today is not the same as it was in 1850. The system is clearly not what it was in 1850, when you have a brown face at the head of American imperialism and global capitalism.

My position: progressive whites shouldn't feel guilty. However, particularly if you live in a settler state, you better supporting some functional changes in society to smash the vestiges of the past that live on in the present and still strangle communities.

Also, on a side note, affirmative action is hardly "reverse discrimination," and if that's your argument, you can hit up this website (http://www.***************/). You might like it. A lot of other white nationalists there you can get along with. Affirmative action is not a solution, but equates to a Band-Aid in a capitalist society. I don't happen to like it because it doesn't solve any problems, and further serves to integrate oppressed minorities into the mainstream fabric of imperialist, capitalist American society, which I sure as hell don't support.

[ls]

Who do you think implements criminal laws which prohibit murder, rape and so on? Who do you think implements and enforces laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, disability, age, race, religion etc? Sorry, but your ahistorical and moralistic bogey man of the bourgeoisie state doesn't cut it for this discussion.

It's not moralistic and it's not using the bourgeoisie state as a bogeyman, it's a fact that the state uses positive discrimination merely as an attempt to further its agenda, positive discrimination only serves to divide the working-class even further, do you think people won't say "well I have the right skills, why was I rejected for the job?" and do you think it's fair that that should happen to people?

Apologism for discrimination in the first place almost serves to legitimise the wrongs committed against disadvantaged people.


And any communist worth mentioning would fully support welfare programs, minimum wage laws and any other programs which attempt to alleviate the worst consequences of poverty.

This isn't the same at all, why are you drawing stupid comparisons?


Well guess what, the basis of your argument is no different from those who advocate minarchism or any other anarcho-capitalist ideology. To Marxists, material conditions matter, not liberal-philosophical axioms which pretend that we are all equal and that therefore anything which in law upsets that equality is therefore 'racist.'

So many things historically and now in the law promote discrimination, please don't try and say that the law is currently "quite good" and that it "just needs a bit of fixing" as you're almost making out.


This had absolutely nothing to do with a revolutionary society, but a capitalist society on which the basis of HLVS argued (unless you think that in a communist society workers will compete for jobs).

There is at least one post in this thread arguing for positive discrimination in a post-revolutionary society.


The class who was forced to implement them under pressure from below by the working-class.

That's just not true, the slogans that institutions use when dealing with equality in regards to gender and race are glorious examples of what I'm talking about.


You know, the same class that was forced to concede the 8-hour workday, universal healthcare (in western-Europe and other places), child-labour laws, universal suffrage, universal schooling, ending Jim Crow etc. etc. due to working-class pressure from below.

Positive discrimination is not really from the same perspective as those things.


But you're right, we should oppose all that because it was a form of appeasement that hides the real horrors of capitalism from us. :rolleyes:

No, furthermore if you look in this thread there are people arguing that it has a place in a revolutionary society as well.


The conservative bourgeoisie agrees with you that those are "liberal pieces of shit", but that only shows whose side you're on regarding those issues.

Great, the conservative bourgeoisie are pieces of shit too.


You know who else agrees with you on Affirmative Action specifically and recently came out against it with the exact same arguments you are using?

This guy


Except mine is from a completely different perspective.


The police also benefits from minimum wage laws, from the 8-hour workday, from universal healthcare, from progressive tax laws, anti-sexist laws which provide for maternity leaves, ending Jim Crow and slavery thereby providing them with more possible recruits to begin with etc. etc.

Do you think that the police have revolutionary potential or something?


What a totally inept, irrelevant, meaningless "argument".

It borders on the "don't go to McDonalds or use [insert commodity produced by capitalist company] because it's run by evil Capitalists!" lifestyleist nonsense.

No it fucking doesn't, so someone pats you on the head and says: we've recruited you because we have a quota system in place, there are much better people than you but we chose you because you're disadvantaged.

It's not in the same league at all, you're using lifestylism to try and smear me even though I'm not a lifestylist whatsoever, you also seem to think that the police have revolutionary potential which is frankly ridiculous.

[FreeFocus]

It's shit like this thread translated into the real world which answers the question of white leftists when they ask, "Why is minority involvement so low?" It's because the left, largely dominated by whites who either can't or don't want to relate to non-white people, cultures and issues, wouldn't get anything solved for them. It's this latent racism that creeps up, and it's been seen far too much in this thread.

[Led Zeppelin]

That's just not true, the slogans that institutions use when dealing with equality in regards to gender and race are glorious examples of what I'm talking about.

It's not true because of some reason you made up that has got nothing to do with the issue?

Please explain then why the bourgeoisie conceded these rights to working people. Did they do it out of benevolence? Out of kindness?

I suppose we can just all wait then for the kind rulers to hand over power to us when we've convinced them enough by sucking up to them.

How ridiculous.


Positive discrimination is not really from the same perspective as those things.

You fail to comprehend the meaning of the term "positive discrimination". The "positive" before "discrimination" cancels the latter out.

Once again, there is discrimination. That is a fact. Within capitalism you can only counter it in one way (regarding employment and admission).

This means that when there are two people, one black, one white, both equally qualified, the one who's black has the right to be preferred. The same applies to men and women. We are of course assuming that what they are qualified for is a limited position, which is hardly the case most of the time.

You know why this is necessary? Because if it didn't exist the white one would be "preferred" by society as it is, since it is a inherent racist and sexist one. I personally of course go further and not simply want the preference to be based on equal qualifications but even on unequal qualifications within the bounds of qualification for the position/admission itself, because the main reason behind these qualifications being unequal in the first place is the history of racism and sexism permeating our being as a society.

You want to remove the "positive discrimination" and leave racist , i.e, real discrimination as it is. That is the only side you are serving by opposing Affirmative Action, because within the context of capitalism there are no other "band-aids" available. And unless you can single-handedly cause a social revolution right here and right now, you have to choose a side in the here and now. You are either on the side of the racists and conservatives, or on the side of the working-class minorities who have fought decades long to gain this right.


furthermore if you look in this thread there are people arguing that it has a place in a revolutionary society as well.

First of all, who argued that?

Secondly, in a post-revolutionary society coming out of the womb of capitalism there may be a situation wherein programs such as Affirmative Action (but much more far-reaching and revolutionary in nature) are required for a limited period of time to counter the deeply rooted sentiments of racism and sexism.

Of course it's ridiculous to believe that Affirmative Action should stay in existence long after racism and sexism have been uprooted from society and have died away.

Then it would indeed be "reverse racism" because the playing field has finally become equal.


Great, the conservative bourgeoisie are pieces of shit too.

Except on Affirmative Action, where they're on your side of the issue.


Except mine is from a completely different perspective.

Oh right, you weren't the one who forwarded the "we have to choose on merit" argument. Well, then that is directed at them, not you.


Do you think that the police have revolutionary potential or something?

Do you think the police is some supernatural force that defies all physical laws?

I can ask questions that have got nothing to do with what you said too.

The point of what I said is that the police also benefits from certain "concessions" the bourgeoisie class has given to the working-class, as does the military by the way. One example is the ending of Slavery and Segregation. Both those events freed up a lot of fresh recruits for the capitalist state to use, and they did. Even within the context of slavery itself there were divisions and subdivisions, the "house negro" versus the "field negro".

In the face of all this your "argument" is a nothingness. You said the police used a right granted to all of society for its own gains as if it somehow makes that right reactionary or undesirable solely on this basis. The right for a maternity leave is also used by police and it probably attracts a lot of women to the job, that doesn't make that right undesirable or reactionary.

I'm surprised anyone even brought that up as an argument.


No it fucking doesn't, so someone pats you on the head and says: we've recruited you because we have a quota system in place, there are much better people than you but we chose you because you're disadvantaged.

Let me take back what I said above about Pat Buchanan's video not being directed at you; it certainly is.

You are using the exact same argument as he is. People should be judged on their merits, they should not be "patted on the head". This presupposes that there is a situation wherein "merits" are the deciding factor in hiring or accepting people for jobs or colleges.

If you believe that, you automatically believe that capitalist society isn't inherently sexist or racist.

That puts you on Pat's side of the fence socially.


It's not in the same league at all, you're using lifestylism to try and smear me even though I'm not a lifestylist whatsoever, you also seem to think that the police have revolutionary potential which is frankly ridiculous.

It is actually very similar in argument. You initially suggested that Affirmative Action must be opposed because the bourgeoisie class enacted it and the police force uses it.

That ignores the subject of the matter, Affirmative Action in this case, and goes right on to denounce it based on guilt by association type of reasoning.

I have shown above how ridiculous this "guilt by association" type of reasoning is.

There is no denying that the same type of reasoning is used by lifestylists to justify their ridiculous views. For example, people are denounced for eating at McDonalds or drinking Coca Cola because McDonalds and Coca Cola are owned by evil corporate capitalists, they are as such "guilty by association".

If you don't want to be compared to them then don't use the same reasoning.

Argue the issue of Affirmative Action (I like how you called it "positive discrimination" to scare people) itself.

[ls]

Affirmative action is not a solution, but equates to a Band-Aid in a capitalist society. I don't happen to like it because it doesn't solve any problems, and further serves to integrate oppressed minorities into the mainstream fabric of imperialist, capitalist American society, which I sure as hell don't support.

I'm not sure how you can support it but understand that it doesn't solve any problems, your argument really makes no sense here.


It's shit like this thread translated into the real world which answers the question of white leftists when they ask

If you're referring to me, you might at least want to know that I'm not even what you consider "white".


"Why is minority involvement so low?" It's because the left, largely dominated by whites who either can't or don't want to relate to non-white people, cultures and issues, wouldn't get anything solved for them. It's this latent racism that creeps up, and it's been seen far too much in this thread.

I love this "relate to non-white people" shit, please, Pogue has detailed his experiences of "relating" to non-white people in one of the most multicultural parts of London, for me I've grown up around people from all cultures and of all races as well, both of my left groups visibly have a lot of non-white people in it, please don't act like you are the moral authority on "relating to non-white people".

[Invariance]

It's not moralistic and it's not using the bourgeoisie state as a bogeyman, it's a fact that the state uses positive discrimination merely as an attempt to further its agenda, positive discrimination only serves to divide the working-class even further, do you think people won't say "well I have the right skills, why was I rejected for the job?" and do you think it's fair that that should happen to people? Yes, it is moralistic and ahistorical because it pretends that everything the state has ever implemented is by default wrong and deserving of condemnation.

Marxists recognize that the working class can gain concessions which raise living and working standards, and that it is irrespective to the validity of those concessions that they are enforced by the state.

The idea that "positive discrimination" divides the working class is fundamentally wrong.

The working class is already divided on racist issues, it is opportunist to argue that we shouldn't address racism, however limited affirmative action does, because it could lead to (gasp!) people having to question their own racist attitudes and their positions in society.

See, communists have principles which aren't thrown away on the basis of popularity.

And indeed, some of the sources which LZ cited show that the situations which you seem to think constitute the totality of affirmative action rarely occur.

Secondly, if you're a white man, in certain employment arrangements you already have a great advantage over, say, white or black females.

So yeah, in this context when you and HLVS argue against employment opportunities which would provide a fairer opportunity to, for example, black employees, then you are only defending your white/male privilege.


Apologism for discrimination in the first place almost serves to legitimise the wrongs committed against disadvantaged people.Uh, no it doesn't and frankly that's a disgusting line of reasoning.

That's like saying that anyone who argues for anti-discrimination laws supports discrimination or 'legitimizes it.'

Every person here supports social revolution, but just because you support laws which serve to alleviate the repercussions of structural discrimination in the here and now doesn't mean that you legitimize the roots of that discrimination.

This isn't an either/or scenario. Communists are perfectly capable of recognizing the benefits of such welfare/equality programs, whilst recognizing the inherent limits which capitalism puts on them.


This isn't the same at all, why are you drawing stupid comparisons?The comparison is perfectly appropriate.

You and HLVS have argued that discrimination laws act against the 'merits' of an individual worker.

Well, since minimum wage laws act independently of the 'merit' of the worker, then you would also oppose them too.

That is the logical conclusion of your flimsy argument.


So many things historically and now in the law promote discrimination, please don't try and say that the law is currently "quite good" and that it "just needs a bit of fixing" as you're almost making out.Here's some advice: just because you put "quotes" around phrases of your choosing doesn't mean that I have said them or argued for those positions.

All it does it show your inability to engage with the arguments I, and others, have put forth.

[FreeFocus]

I'm not sure how you can support it but understand that it doesn't solve any problems, your argument really makes no sense here.

If you're referring to me, you might at least want to know that I'm not even what you consider "white".

I love this "relate to non-white people" shit, please, Pogue has detailed his experiences of "relating" to non-white people in one of the most multicultural parts of London, for me I've grown up around people from all cultures and of all races as well, both of my left groups visibly have a lot of non-white people in it, please don't act like you are the moral authority on "relating to non-white people".

For starters, I'm not white either.

If you didn't selectively read my posts, you'd realize that I said affirmative action was a Band-Aid in an imperialist, capitalist society, just like all other social programs. The problem can only be solved through an anti-imperialist, anti-racist socialist revolution.

I don't know how "multicultural" the UK can be when it's 85% white and a historically white country. At best you have people of color who are largely culturally British, are British citizens, and identify with the British identity.

Perhaps you prefer the "old leftism" that was devised in Europe in the 1800s are developed out of European experience and for European problems. Marx, Engels, Proudhon, Kropotkin, whomever - these are all Europeans from the 1800s who did not have much in the way of outside experience. To adopt a simplistic view of "just unite the working class and everything else will fade away" is pathetically silly and naive.

[ls]

Yes, it is moralistic and ahistorical because it pretends that everything the state has ever implemented is by default wrong and deserving of condemnation.

Please quote me saying that?


Marxists recognize that the working class can gain concessions which raise living and working standards, and that it is irrespective to the validity of those concessions that they are enforced by the state.

Except when they are inherently wrong in the first place.


The idea that "positive discrimination" divides the working class is fundamentally wrong.

How? It does.


The working class is already divided on racist issues

Yes, it further divides the working-class, well done.


it is opportunist to argue that we shouldn't address racism, however limited affirmative action does, because it could lead to (gasp!) people having to question their own racist attitudes and their positions in society.

We do address racism, you cannot do it by discrimination of that kind though, all you can do is balance it out in its entirety.


See, communists have principles which aren't thrown away on the basis of popularity.

The populist approach on this thread by most is in fact to promote it, so please.


And indeed, some of the sources which LZ cited show that the situations which you seem to think constitute the totality of affirmative action rarely occur.

It's fundamentally a flawed concept; you can't discriminate against certain people like that because you're apologising for the racist institution's practices in the first place.

In a country like the US, with its long running history of discrimination in the workplace, why shouldn't workers militantly oppose the discrimination instead of stand by a state which works to limit them in any way they can?


Secondly, if you're a white man, in certain employment arrangements you already have a great advantage over, say, white or black females.

Not necessarily though, it's like you are blaming white men for this where it isn't really the fault of the "advantaged" person, it's a bad thing for the disadvantage person and the fault of the institution/person responsible for recruitment.


So yeah, in this context when you and HLVS argue against employment opportunities which would provide a fairer opportunity to, for example, black employees, then you are only defending your white/male privilege.

Are you a comedian? I'm not even white and have argued for the strongneed of anarcha-feminism consistently.

Sorry for defending my white nationalist male privilege by refusing to patronise minorities.


Uh, no it doesn't and frankly that's a disgusting line of reasoning.

That's like saying that anyone who argues for anti-discrimination laws supports discrimination or 'legitimizes it.'

Nope, not the same.


Every person here supports social revolution, but just because you support laws which serve to alleviate the repercussions of structural discrimination in the here and now doesn't mean that you legitimize the roots of that discrimination.

I think you are if you support positive discrimination, it's a completely void tactic and something which just further divides workers I'm afraid, you can't escape that fact.


This isn't an either/or scenario. Communists are perfectly capable of recognizing the benefits of such welfare/equality programs, whilst recognizing the inherent limits which capitalism puts on them.

With some laws that may be the case, others are just inherently flawed and there is no escaping that, it is up to us to decide which ones are and aren't.


You and HLVS have argued that discrimination laws act against the 'merits' of an individual worker.

Partly, they also I feel, patronise workers by placing them on a pedestal.;


Well, since minimum wage laws act independently of the 'merit' of the worker, then you would also oppose them too.

No, they don't divide the working-class. Stop being an idiot.


That is the logical conclusion of your flimsy argument.

Haha ok.


Here's some advice: just because you put "quotes" around phrases of your choosing doesn't mean that I have said them or argued for those positions.

Except you basically did.


All it does it show your inability to engage with the arguments I, and others, have put forth.

Most of your arguments are ridiculous.


If you didn't selectively read my posts, you'd realize that I said affirmative action was a Band-Aid in an imperialist, capitalist society

Hello? I selectively read that, it's kind of the main drive behind my last post...


just like all other social programs.

It's not "just like" all other social programs, it really serves to cause tension between working-class people.


The problem can only be solved through an anti-imperialist, anti-racist socialist revolution.

And there are many other elements to it too, if I wrote something like that someone would probably accuse me of being everything elseist by not including the million other kinds of prejudice which exist.

Ah being anti-imperialist is always enough these days.


don't know how "multicultural" the UK can be when it's 85% white and a historically white country. At best you have people of color who are largely culturally British, are British citizens, and identify with the British identity.

You clearly have no clue, the parents of many kids at my school were deeply resentful of even being here, it's not like it was their first choice. Why don't you go down to Brixton one of these days and tell me it's a beacon of British imperialism because of all the painfully white cops walking around.. while ignoring all the actual locals. It seems like something you would do.


To adopt a simplistic view of "just unite the working class and everything else will fade away" is pathetically silly and naive.

Of course that's not the end of it, but it's one of the main things we must do to enact a revolution.

[FreeFocus]

Hello? I selectively read that, it's kind of the main drive behind my last post...

It's not "just like" all other social programs, it really serves to cause tension between working-class people.

And there are many other elements to it too, if I wrote something like that someone would probably accuse me of being everything elseist by not including the million other kinds of prejudice which exist.

Ah being anti-imperialist is always enough these days.

You clearly have no clue, the parents of many kids at my school were deeply resentful of even being here, it's not like it was their first choice. Why don't you go down to Brixton one of these days and tell me it's a beacon of British imperialism because of all the painfully white cops walking around.. while ignoring all the actual locals. It seems like something you would do.

Of course that's not the end of it, but it's one of the main things we must do to enact a revolution.

Obviously you didn't selectively read the part I was referring to, otherwise you would've comprehended that affirmative action is a Band-Aid. Perhaps you need to look up Band-Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-Aid).

Causes tension between what groups? Who gets mad about? Oh, that's right, white workers. "I can't get what I'm entitled to because of these fucking immigrants and niggers. Damn them." I sure as hell don't want to unite with reactionary racist fucks. I deal with reality, and the reality is that no matter how much the left wants to organize, sections of the working class will continue to support imperialism and racism. Where that occurs, I do not consider them allies, and especially so if they consciously work against me by joining racist groups like the BNP or the police or imperialist structures such as the military.

Yes, there are other elements, but things like homophobia and sexism aren't as relevant to this topic as racism and imperialism are. Therefore they weren't mentioned because the topic at hand isn't about them. I probably wouldn't mention anti-imperialism in a thread about fighting homophobia.

Perhaps that's your experience. I'm sure there are some pissed off minorities in the UK, just as there are everywhere else. But are the majority angry with Britain? Probably not.

[zerozerozerominusone]

I fully support defending affirmative action here in the US. I also support reparations (in the form of large government funding of poor black areas) when demanded by students and black people.


Reparations? For what? Who pays whom?


However I think this "privileged" idea is post-modern crap. I think we need to flip it and say, no, there is not "white/male/hetero privilage" but there is "minority/female/LGBT oppression" on top of the oppression and exploitation of all members iof the working class.

There is anti-white male opression, too. And all manner of other institutionalized oppression. Why not cut the crap and just take the position that all institutional oppression be eliminated? Anything less is just another example of someone's private flavor of hypocrisy.

[gorillafuck]

There is anti-white male opression, too.
Oh fuck off.

[War Cry]

There is anti-white male opression, too.

Uhh, could you give some examples of institutional oppression that is anti-white male? Aside from white men being a portion of the population that is exploited as a class.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Oh fuck off.

That was intelligent.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Uhh, could you give some examples of institutional oppression that is anti-white male? Aside from white men being a portion of the population that is exploited as a class.

Affirmative action provides ample examples of this.

Or how about the tacit (and often not-so-tacit) idea that white males are all evil oppressors, particularly because they are white? There are loads of folks who just love their littel game of trying to make white men feel guilty. They are most welcome to go get stuffed.

[Coggeh]

Affirmative action provides ample examples of this.

Or how about the tacit (and often not-so-tacit) idea that white males are all evil oppressors, particularly because they are white? There are loads of folks who just love their littel game of trying to make white men feel guilty. They are most welcome to go get stuffed.
Affirmative action is actually a good thing in my opinion when it comes to things like positions of power etc .By getting through a certain amount of minorities into lets say the police along with women it breaks the stereotype white male barrier . Its not pretty but its necessary in capitalism .

[Jimmie Higgins]

Reparations? For what? Who pays whom?Tax the rich and build schools and hospitals and decent housing. This would begin to make up for the money that has been pulled out of these areas because of crooked bank and landlord dealings... like in the Bronx in the 70s when landlords would burn down black tenament buildings to collect insurance money and then blame the arson on the people who lived there.


There is anti-white male opression, too. And all manner of other institutionalized oppression. Why not cut the crap and just take the position that all institutional oppression be eliminated? Anything less is just another example of someone's private flavor of hypocrisy.Yes there is a lot of institutionalized opression but I do not know of any that opress only white people - the opression white people feel is usually also felt by non-whites to a greater degree. The economic crisis for example... in some black neighborhoods, unemployment has gone up above 20-25% while it has only gone up to about 12% for white people of a similar background.

Getting rid of racism and opression of other groups will also help white males too. For exampe, many working class housholds have 2 income earners, so getting rid of lower pay for women, getting better helathcare and materinity (and paternity) leave with definately help white males too.

In places where blacks or latinos are paid less than whites, whites tend to be paid less than people in areas with less racial inequality because the bosses have used racism to lower the wages of both group and make them compete with eachother. If this racism is overcome, it will be more possible for workers of all backgrounds to mount a united fight.

I support affermative action first of all because it is good for people hurt by the systematic racism in the US and other countries. Secondly, I support it because the working class will never be able to move ahead as long as some portions of it are left behind... the working class is a chain and only as strong as our weakest links - so shoreing up the cracks that the ruling class has worked so hard to make through racism and sexism will make the whole class more unified and stronger.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Though I disagree with zerozerozerominusone's position, it was dumb that he was banned. I think the restriction rules are a little to strict, it seems as though is you don't take a position that is in lock step with traditional leftism you are restricted.

[ls]

Before we continue, I'd just like to remind you, Invariance of this:


It didn't occur to him that no one here knows nor cares about what ethnicity he is, because we're judging his posts by what they are, not by who the author of them is, which is a total irrelevancy.

This has clearly not been the case with your posts, accusing me and Pogue of "defending your white male privilege", the point being that even if either of us are white, you should keep your stupid mouth shut because it has zero bearing on either of ours posts.


Obviously you didn't selectively read the part I was referring to

Yes I did.

Band-aids are not wanted, we need to stop workers from being exploited with as permanent solutions as we can work.


Causes tension between what groups? Who gets mad about? Oh, that's right, white workers.

What about non-white workers who have fought hard to get up the ladder to a job being discriminated against too because someone with lesser skills from a more oppressed minority (and believe you me, there's constant racism in subtle arguments like "italian immigrants are more likely to be better than blacks" or "the best immigrants are polish people because they always work hard unlike those white untermensch who live on our council estates") gets the job instead.

Do you think that that is ok as well?


"I can't get what I'm entitled to because of these fucking immigrants and niggers. Damn them."

All reactionary attitudes should be fought.


I sure as hell don't want to unite with reactionary racist fucks.

Let me guess, you wrote off those strikes in Lincolnshire as being reactionary because a few of the workers wrote "British jobs for British workers" (I expect PRC-UTE to pounce on this) even though they've been brought to believe immigrants are the problem.

Maybe if you tried to engage working people once in a while with quite a different viewpoint to yourself, you might find you have great success in convincing them of what you believe.


I deal with reality, and the reality is that no matter how much the left wants to organize, sections of the working class will continue to support imperialism and racism.

No shit.


Where that occurs, I do not consider them allies, and especially so if they consciously work against me by joining racist groups like the BNP

Writing off people who use the BNP vote as a protest vote against the main three UK parties is something typical that I'd expect from you, you're moving the conversation off into an irrelevant heading.

Always people talking about the stupid BNP.


or the police or imperialist structures such as the military.

Ha they are all the same thing, all imperialists yeah. Whatever.

[quote]Yes, there are other elements, but things like homophobia and sexism aren't as relevant to this topic as racism and imperialism are.

How is sexism not relevant, affirmative action supposedly gets women into jobs too, have you not been reading?


I probably wouldn't mention anti-imperialism in a thread about fighting homophobia.

Actually you probably would.


Perhaps that's your experience. I'm sure there are some pissed off minorities in the UK, just as there are everywhere else. But are the majority angry with Britain? Probably not.

Are the majority angry with any country? Probably not.


It's not true because of some reason you made up that has got nothing to do with the issue?

Please explain then why the bourgeoisie conceded these rights to working people. Did they do it out of benevolence? Out of kindness?

I suppose we can just all wait then for the kind rulers to hand over power to us when we've convinced them enough by sucking up to them.

How ridiculous.

It's a wise move and works at limiting the progressiveness of genuine anti-discriminatory workers uprisings under the guise of political correctness and supposed "rights for workers" the governments of the world can easily move to limit workers in a much more subtle way.


You fail to comprehend the meaning of the term "positive discrimination". The "positive" before "discrimination" cancels the latter out.

Of course it can be argued to be a band-aid or whatever, we shouldn't be working at redressing social displacement, we should be ending it by workers taking a stand, not by using system-enforced means which always end up in us losing out.


Once again, there is discrimination. That is a fact. Within capitalism you can only counter it in one way (regarding employment and admission).

Affirmative action gets selectively enforced as it is, countering it? It's really not forcing equality the way we need to fight for it.


This means that when there are two people, one black, one white, both equally qualified, the one who's black has the right to be preferred.

If they both have the same skills and they both come from the same background, why in your specific case should the black person be preferred?

Within Capitalism I'm not saying that this stance is completely wrong, just that it's not going to make people understand your point of view any better, I'm obviously assuming that you mean this is within Capitalism because it's just complete bull if you don't.

You're the one who made up this hypothetical, obviously it's different when we're talking about someone who has come from a poorer background, but I would say the same if you preferred the black person if the white person came from a poorer background.


The same applies to men and women. We are of course assuming that what they are qualified for is a limited position, which is hardly the case most of the time.

It's becoming more common anyways, but the point is that ultimately, in our preferred society that would not be the case, also I think that fighting the inbalance must be done by workers and we can't rely on unreliable state measures to "address the gap".


You know why this is necessary? Because if it didn't exist the white one would be "preferred" by society as it is, since it is a inherent racist and sexist one.

So workers shouldn't allow this to happen, that's why we need to build a strong movement within the guts of the society and our communities to stop it, the truth is that the state-given rights against discrimination weren't enacted to address the gap, they were given in order to limit the fightback against the gap.


I personally of course go further and not simply want the preference to be based on equal qualifications but even on unequal qualifications within the bounds of qualification for the position/admission itself, because the main reason behind these qualifications being unequal in the first place is the history of racism and sexism permeating our being as a society.

Yeah, but you can't expect the state to be on our side in a way like this.


You want to remove the "positive discrimination" and leave racist , i.e, real discrimination as it is.

Not true. I want us to build a strong movement to destroy every kind of relevant discrimination in employment, the workplace itself, education and in every other place generally thought to be relevant to workers.

We can't do this with a state actively working against us.


That is the only side you are serving by opposing Affirmative Action

That's just not true.


because within the context of capitalism there are no other "band-aids" available.

In fact there are none.


And unless you can single-handedly cause a social revolution right here and right now, you have to choose a side in the here and now. You are either on the side of the racists and conservatives, or on the side of the working-class minorities who have fought decades long to gain this right.

Well that's bullshit.


First of all, who argued that?

I don't even need to go and find the post now, what with you arguing for it in this next bit..


Secondly, in a post-revolutionary society coming out of the womb of capitalism there may be a situation wherein programs such as Affirmative Action (but much more far-reaching and revolutionary in nature) are required for a limited period of time to counter the deeply rooted sentiments of racism and sexism.

I can only speculate as to what you mean by this, hopefully something decent however.


Do you think the police is some supernatural force that defies all physical laws?

Well, what is your position on the police? Do you think they are lumpenproletarians actively working to destroy our movement or do you think that most of them have revolutionary potential to become class-conscious proletarians?


The point of what I said is that the police also benefits from certain "concessions" the bourgeoisie class has given to the working-class, as does the military by the way. One example is the ending of Slavery and Segregation.

That's not in the same league as affirmative action.


Both those events freed up a lot of fresh recruits for the capitalist state to use, and they did. Even within the context of slavery itself there were divisions and subdivisions, the "house negro" versus the "field negro".


Yeah, once again different groups of people, some considered better than others, we still have to work to end this within the context of capitalism, that is believing that even in some limited way "some immigrants are better than others" and other shit like that.


You said the police used a right granted to all of society for its own gains as if it somehow makes that right reactionary or undesirable solely on this basis. The right for a maternity leave is also used by police and it probably attracts a lot of women to the job, that doesn't make that right undesirable or reactionary.

It's not solely on that basis, but it gives you a good idea of how the state selectively uses it.


You are using the exact same argument as he is. People should be judged on their merits, they should not be "patted on the head". This presupposes that there is a situation wherein "merits" are the deciding factor in hiring or accepting people for jobs or colleges.

No that's not right, obviously discrimination exists in capitalism......... I would be restricted already if I thought otherwise.

Do you have a knack for inventing other people's arguments for them?


It is actually very similar in argument. You initially suggested that Affirmative Action must be opposed because the bourgeoisie class enacted it and the police force uses it.

It's a good indication of how it serves the bourgeoisie, I think, once again though you are inventing my arguments for me.


If you don't want to be compared to them then don't use the same reasoning.


Argue the issue of Affirmative Action (I like how you called it "positive discrimination" to scare people) itself.

Over here it's actually called positive action, but whatever. The terms really don't make much difference to me, I'll just call it positive action.

I think maybe you should read this: http://libcom.org/library/black-particularity-reconsidered-adolph-l-reed-jr, it goes to show how basically negating the black civil rights movement was done by supposedly conceding sections of its demands in a limited, state-sponsored way.

[9]

To Is-
I'm curious about your argument. I think it is certainly true that there are both positives and negatives involved in any State concession to popular movements. For instance, on the positive side, a poor black man will be able to get a job and provide for his family when he otherwise would not have gotten the job due to discrimination etc. On the negative side, one could argue that such concessions effectively appease the popular movement which fought for them while leaving the broader demands (obviously) unmet. Would you say, then, that universal healthcare should not be enacted in America because minor (with regard to the "big picture") concessions made by the State to the working class have the effect of blunting opposition and pacifying resistance? It seems to be the same logic that is employed in opposing affirmative action, correct? That when popular radical movements arise with a list of demands and grievances and put pressure on the State, the State alleviates the situation by conceding a select few of said demands, and subsequently, the larger demands fall by the wayside and the popular movement ceases to be? Well, if this is what you are saying, I agree to an extent - that is to say, I agree with it in theory. But then, if one follows this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, what you are advocating is withdrawing all State concessions gained by minorities and workers through popular struggles because such concessions pacify resistance and blunt broader class-consciousness. In which case, I see no reason to single out affirmative action. It seems reasonable to expect that you should be just as adamant about repealing all State concessions. This would include revoking laws which provide the five-day workweek, 12-hour work day, basic rights of women, basic rights of blacks, laws permitting collective bargaining, laws criminalizing slavery... basically the logical conclusion of your argument being that all gains made by popular struggle enacted by the State ought to be reversed. I respectfully but thoroughly disagree with this line of thinking. On the contrary, I think such concessions are imperative. Of course, there is certainly truth that State concessions pacify resistance, but the solution to this is not to seek to repeal progressive concessions - the solution is to work to raise consciousness among our fellow workers and radicals that single-issue activism can't and won't cut it. That doesn't mean that we should oppose things like nationalized healthcare (I am in America); on the contrary, we should advocate them. We should advocate pushing the State to its limits while simultaneously promoting class consciousness and building workers movements which will, upon reaching a critical mass, overthrow the State(s).

[Led Zeppelin]

It's a wise move and works at limiting the progressiveness of genuine anti-discriminatory workers uprisings under the guise of political correctness and supposed "rights for workers" the governments of the world can easily move to limit workers in a much more subtle way.

Concessions are granted by ruling classes under pressure from below by the working masses to "limit their progressiveness".

Thank you for repeating the same thing I said, but in other words.

You do realize that when you do that you've basically admitted that you were wrong, right?

I hope so.


Of course it can be argued to be a band-aid or whatever, we shouldn't be working at redressing social displacement, we should be ending it by workers taking a stand, not by using system-enforced means which always end up in us losing out.

Once again, I (and everyone else) really don't give a crap about what you personally think we should or shouldn't do. It is, like your ethnicity, wholly irrelevant.

What matters is not what you believe is "the way to go", what matters is where we are now and which side we're on.

The issue of Affirmative Action is, in the US, on the list of debate at the moment. If you are active in politics and have any ounce of worth to you, you will have a position on this. Now you can be a spineless coward and serve the opponents of it (conservatises and angry white men, like Pat Buchanan) by saying that "we should have socialism!", or you take a stand and defend the gains Affirmative Action gives to minorities.

This entire position of yours is a joke. It basically implies that we should desire living in a naked dictatorship without any "band-aids", that is, a regime worse than the one ruling over Nazi Germany.

You aren't helping working-class people move towards socialism with that argument, you are only helping those who would love to live in such a regime, because they can exploit and oppress the people to the highest possible degree.

When a worker who has been discriminated against comes to you and asks you; "What can you do about it? Do you support Affirmative Action?", you will tell him; "No, we have to wait for socialism then racism will magically disappear because socialism is the antidote to all society's ills".

But the worker insists; "Ok, but in the absence of that, I need a job right now or I will starve. My daughter needs to get in college but she's being refused because the college admission board prefers white students even though her marks are the same. What do I do right now?", your Ivory Tower reply: "Just wait, we're building the movement!"

Of course, ironically, instead of getting such progressive workers on your side and more likely to "join your movement", you repel them and instead let the Social-Democrats and Liberals take them under their wings, very willingly.

One should recall the Black Panthers in this context. They set-up many social welfare programs to help the people in their community. Did this help? Well, yes, it did, because the Black Panthers became one of the most supported revolutionary organizations in that era of the US.

They naturally comprehended the very easily comprehended fact that when you help people, they support you. When you tell people that any gains they have made with blood and tears is useless and they should be taken away from them because such "band-aids" only harm them in the end, they will hate and despise you. And rightly so, for you have been the "socialist" Pat Buchanan.



Affirmative action gets selectively enforced as it is, countering it? It's really not forcing equality the way we need to fight for it.

There are no doubt problems with Affirmative Action as it is, that is why I support extending it and changing its nature entirely to become more radical.

That is an absolute necessity and can only be done in a post-revolutionary situation because only the working-class has the courage to take such wide-ranging and sweeping revolutionary actions to uproot racism and sexism from society.

The entire nature of Affirmative Action as it exists now would be transformed.

If you can't understand this (which you probably don't because below you attempted to pettily deride me for making the above suggestion by connecting Affirmative Action as it exists now to what I proposed it should be post-revolution) imagine for example the healthcare system.

It is inadequate under present conditions. It is not always applies consistently, there are many flaws with it.

However, any sane person recognizes that this is a great step forward from the days we had to beg the Church to take us in for amateurish medical assistance that usually led to us dying because the Nurses didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

We don't "destroy" the policy of universal healthcare which is hypocratically and disagreeably granted to the working-class, but we extend it, we truly universalize it, in short; we revolutionize it.

When we take this specific logic of yours a bit further we end up at Ludditism.


If they both have the same skills and they both come from the same background, why in your specific case should the black person be preferred?

I already answered this. Actually I exactly answered this very question.

Now I know what FreeFocus meant when he accused you of selective reading. You should really work on that because I don't like repeating myself, it is a waste of my time.

Here is what I said once more:

You know why this is necessary? Because if it didn't exist the white one would be "preferred" by society as it is, since it is a inherent racist and sexist one. I personally of course go further and not simply want the preference to be based on equal qualifications but even on unequal qualifications within the bounds of qualification for the position/admission itself, because the main reason behind these qualifications being unequal in the first place is the history of racism and sexism permeating our being as a society.


I'm obviously assuming that you mean this is within Capitalism because it's just complete bull if you don't.

Yes, the day after a social revolution racism, sexism, prejudice, bigotry, xenophobia will be gotten rid of instantly!

Just like how Christians think a baptism will immediately forgive all their sins.

You really do have quite a shitty understanding of racism, sexism and other forms of social oppression and their history, don't you?

You definitely need to do something about that instead of delusionally believing that the problem can be solved with one thing and one thing only, and that you (of all people...) have the answer to it.


So workers shouldn't allow this to happen, that's why we need to build a strong movement within the guts of the society and our communities to stop it, the truth is that the state-given rights against discrimination weren't enacted to address the gap, they were given in order to limit the fightback against the gap.

Right now Pat Buchanan and the right-wing conservatives are attacking judge Sotomayor for having benefited from Affirmative Action. Right now many people who have benefited and are still benefiting from this program are under attack for the same reason. Right now those groups need someone to defend them.

This isn't some abstract political question existing in our heads, it's going on right now on the streets and airwaves of the bourgeois media.

So as I said before, a serious political person who is worth an ounce of his being, needs to take a stance on this.

Saying: "we need a movement!", "we need socialism!", "communism will liberate us!" is cheap sloganeering, and no one takes you seriously in this debate when you do that. You however go further; you don't just say that nonsense, but you actually attack Affirmative Action for the exact same reasons and using the exact same arguments as Pat Buchanan as his side.

This is why I said, and will say again, that in the here and now you are doing nothing but serving the conservative bourgeoisie and racists.

By doing so you, ironically (because you haven't grasped this yourself yet), push those people who you want and need to attract to "make" this movement away from you, because they are the progressive leftist workers who have already settled this matter decades ago. But even further in the irony chart; you push them to the people you attacked harshly earlier, the liberals and social-democrats!

What an utter failure to analyze the situation coherently and scientifically.


Yeah, but you can't expect the state to be on our side in a way like this.

I know, but once again, I already exactly replied to this:

I of course agree with Freefocus's post below and Invariance's post above, in that Affirmative Action is merely a band-aid "solution", just as all reforms are such under capitalism. They have a transient character in that when working-class pressure diminishes, the temporary rights granted to them can and will be taken away. These are short-term half-assed solutions to long-term deeply rooted problems, which requires a complete solution, if you will. That solution being social revolution, but as was said on the previous page: "In the absence of sweeping societal reforms -- unlikely to take place any time soon -- do these reforms help working-class people in their daily lives? The research record (and I would add common sense) suggests, unequivocally, that it does."

Unlike you I don't bury my head in the sand when political questions of this nature come up by saying; "oh, yeah, socialist revolution, that's the solution". I actually take sides because I know when I don't, I'd have already taken one.

You know, there would have actually been nothing wrong with your stance (and it would have been exactly the same as mine) if you just said that yes, Affirmative Action as it exists now benefits a lot of minorities and gives them chances they would otherwise not have had, so in that limited respect it works. But has it solved the racism and sexism problem in this country? No, it hasn't.

The liberals and reformists said it would, but they were wrong. They were wrong because they didn't understand that while they strike at racism and sexism with one hand, they engender it, encourage it, and give it strength with the other. This is what is meant when we talk of capitalist hypocrisy.

And that is why we need to go beyond Affirmative Action, and revolutionize it, just as we need to revolutionize society as a whole, before we can uproot racism and sexism once and for all.

That is the revolutionary position on this, and it applies not only to this gain, but to all others, ranging from ending Jim Crow to ending slavery to the 8 hour workday.

Also, how come you support my view on what Affirmative Action should be above but attack me for the same reason below?

I'll bring it up there.


Not true. I want us to build a strong movement

Yeah, see above for a reply to this.

You are ironically only harming the building of a strong movement (especially a multi-ethnic one) by saying and arguing the things you say and argue.


That's just not true.

Well, yes, it actually is. And I have explained why it is so above.

I'm surprised you couldn't figure this out yourself though. You are arguing against Affirmative Action using the exact same arguments someone else is using, but you're not actually "serving" that other person in his argument?

Sure, your "solution" to the problem is different, but your criticism of the existing program is exactly the same, so on that level you are definitely serving him (and, if you like, he's serving you).

Naturally the level of "solutions" is not a political matter in the here and now, so therefore that part of it becomes an irrelevancy in the context of the current national debate on the issue since it's not on the table, neither for him nor for you.



Well that's bullshit.

Yes, that's 'cause reality is bullshit.

But it's still reality.


I don't even need to go and find the post now, what with you arguing for it in this next bit..

Ok, but I guess you forgot that you agreed with my idea of it above.


I can only speculate as to what you mean by this, hopefully something decent however.

You have to resort to speculating when I actually explained what it would consist of in general terms earlier in my post and you even agreed with it?

Let me repeat that part, including your response:


I personally of course go further and not simply want the preference to be based on equal qualifications but even on unequal qualifications within the bounds of qualification for the position/admission itself, because the main reason behind these qualifications being unequal in the first place is the history of racism and sexism permeating our being as a society.

Yeah, but you can't expect the state to be on our side in a way like this.


Well, what is your position on the police? Do you think they are lumpenproletarians actively working to destroy our movement or do you think that most of them have revolutionary potential to become class-conscious proletarians?

I don't want this thread to be derailed, which is why I answered your off-topic diversion question with another. At this point you're trying to catch me on a "unpopular" political stance on the police, which I actually don't have at all.

The police force and the professional army, just as the entire bureaucratic apparatus of capitalist states, are in direct service of the state and therefore are the most reactionary section of society. Their entire existence is based on the existence of the modern capitalist state as it is, so naturally they would be its most staunch defenders.

Happy? Now let's get back to your service of the right-wing, and include a little history lesson regarding concessions and "band-aids", and what our position should be towards them.


That's not in the same league as affirmative action.

Frankly it is irrelevant in what "league" you consider them to be. They were concessions granted, and we support them on principle because they were progressive.

You picked and chose the abolishing of Slavery and Segregation for being "out of the league", but I mentioned many more such concessions that were gained.

For example, I specifically mentioned decreasing work-hours and child-labour laws.

Who else brought up these examples specifically over 100 years ago?

This guy:


“Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!

“If in the political struggle against the bourgeois state the workers succeed only in extracting concessions, then they are guilty of compromise; and this is contrary to eternal principles. All peaceful movements, such as those in which English and American workers have the bad habit of engaging, are therefore to be despised.

“Workers must not struggle to establish a legal limit to the working day, because this is to compromise with the masters, who can then only exploit them for ten or twelve hours, instead of fourteen or sixteen. They must not even exert themselves in order legally to prohibit the employment in factories of children under the age of ten, because by such means they do not bring to an end the exploitation of children over ten: they thus commit a new compromise, which stains the purity of the eternal principles. Here Marx specifically mentions the exact same "band-aids" that I mentioned.

“Workers must not even form single unions for every trade, for by so doing they perpetuate the social division of labour as they find it in bourgeois society; this division, which fragments the working class, is the true basis of their present enslavement.

That is Marx quoting the ridiculous views of some.."people".

He then goes on to show why those views are so ridiculous and, in effect, serve reaction:


It cannot be denied that if the apostles of political indifferentism were to express themselves with such clarity, the working class would make short shrift of them and would resent being insulted by these doctrinaire bourgeois and displaced gentlemen, who are so stupid or so naive as to attempt to deny to the working class any real means of struggle.

For all arms with which to fight must be drawn from society as it is and the fatal conditions of this struggle have the misfortune of not being easily adapted to the idealistic fantasies which these doctors in social science have exalted as divinities, under the names of Freedom, Autonomy, Anarchy.

However the working-class movement is today so powerful that these philanthropic sectarians dare not repeat for the economic struggle those great truths which they used incessantly to proclaim on the subject of the political struggle. They are simply too cowardly to apply them any longer to strikes, combinations, single-craft unions, laws on the labour of women and children, on the limitation of the working day etc., etc. Does this not apply exactly to you as well? I have yet to see you apply this "logic" of yours to economic struggles.

Now let us see whether they are still able to be brought back to the good old traditions, to modesty, good faith and eternal principles.

The first socialists (Fourier, Owen, Saint-Simon, etc.), since social conditions were not sufficiently developed to allow the working class to constitute itself as a militant class, were necessarily obliged to limit themselves to dreams about the model society of the future and were led thus to condemn all the attempts such as strikes, combinations or political movements set in train by the workers to improve their lot. But while we cannot repudiate these patriarchs of socialism, just as chemists cannot repudiate their forebears the alchemists, we must at least avoid falling back into their mistakes, which, if we were to commit them, would be inexcusable.

Later, however, in 1839, when the political and economic struggle of the working class in England had taken on a fairly marked character, Bray, one of Owen's disciples and one of the many who long before Proudhon hit upon the idea of mutualism, published a book entitled Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy.

In his chapter on the inefficacy of all the remedies aimed for by the present struggle, he makes a savage critique of all the activities, political or economic, of the English working class, condemns the political movement, strikes, the limitation of the working day, the restriction of the work of women and children in factories, since all this -- or so he claims -- instead of taking us out of the present state of society, keeps us there and does nothing but render the antagonisms more intense. Is this not the exact same argument used by you in this thread? Yes, it is.

[...]

The master preached indifference in matters of economics -- so as to protect bourgeois freedom or competition, our only guarantee. His disciples preach indifference in matters of politics -- so as to protect bourgeois freedom, their only guarantee. If the early Christians, who also preached political indifferentism, needed an emperor's arm to transform themselves from oppressed into oppressors, so the modern apostles of political indifferentism do not believe that their own eternal principles impose on them abstinence from worldly pleasures and the temporal privileges of bourgeois society. However we must recognize that they display a stoicism worthy of the early Christian martyrs in supporting those fourteen or sixteen working hours such as overburden the workers in the factories. Perhaps here at the end we can change the last sentence to:

However we must recognize that they display a stoicism worthy of the early Christian martyrs in supporting those white males who as a rule have a preferential status in college admissions or job applications, such as to overburden the workers from minority backgrounds.

I suggest you read the whole article here: ]Political indifferentism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/01/indifferentism.htm#[2) and then take a shot at Poverty of Philosophy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm).

It must not be forgotten that my position is wholly in line with Marxism and in fact is entirely based on it (I believe you are an anarchist however so this probably does not have much of an effect on you. It does illustrate however how reactionary ideas stay reactionary after 100 years).


Yeah, once again different groups of people, some considered better than others, we still have to work to end this within the context of capitalism, that is believing that even in some limited way "some immigrants are better than others" and other shit like that.

Well, no, not really.

"We" can't end it within the context of capitalism. That is the whole point of what I (and FreeFocus, and Invariance) were saying.

There is no either-or question here. It's not, either support socialist revolution, or oppose any form of reform. As Marx said, I recognize that you display a stoicism worthy of the early Christian martyrs in supporting those fourteen or sixteen working hours such as overburden the workers in the factories, or in opposing universal healthcare such as overburden sick workers, or in opposing maternity leaves to overburden women, or in opposing [insert progressive political gain made by the working-class within the context of capitalism].


No that's not right, obviously discrimination exists in capitalism......... I would be restricted already if I thought otherwise.

Then stop repeating the reactionary pseudo-racist argument of "judging people on their merits instead of race or gender" within the context of capitalist society because that is an impossibility given the inherent nature of capitalist society as sexist and racist.

Also, if you do decide to reply, leave out the idiotic and pedantic one-liners:


Well that's bullshit.

That's just not true.

No shit.

Haha ok.

Most of your arguments are ridiculous.

Stop being an idiot.

And so and so forth. If you resort to that stuff then don't even bother replying.

[khad]

Is it not irony that some of the folks screaming against "transphobia" turn around and spout racist libertarian garbage?

No, on second thought, that's pretty much expected from the bourgeois.

[Pogue]

Quite simply I don't think affirmitive action is the answer to racism, and yes I do think its patronising. I think there are better ways to deal with racism.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't have time to read through the whole of this thread but I do think that white people are privileged, insofar as they are able to things and receive benefits that are not available to people of other ethnic groups. Let's get some hard facts first. Discussions like this often involve a lot of unjustified assertions, so we need an empirical basis. To take one form of evidence, the the publication of a House of Commons home affairs committee report into young black people and the criminal justice system in June 2007, available here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/young-black-people-cjs-dec-08.htm), showed that black people constitute 2.7 percent of the population aged 10-17, but represent 8.5 percent of all those arrested in England and Wales, and are just over six times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people. The same report showed that once they have been charged with an offence, black young offenders are significantly less likely to be given unconditional bail compared to white young offenders and black young offenders are more likely to be remanded in custody compared to white reoffenders. This (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=3182) article from Socialist Worker in 2003 notes that, on average, someone from an ethnic minority is four times more likely to be excluded from school, and will earn £129 less a month than a white person with equivalent qualifications, whilst black youth suffer up to 40% unemployment. These statistics speak for themselves - they show that British society is based on systemic racial discrimination, which operates independently of individual cases, in the workplace, and in the courts. This is the case even though we as socialists recognize that there is no such thing as race in biological terms, and poses a challenge for socialists, because this discrimination has the potential to create divisions within the working class, especially when immigration is introduced as a complicating factor.

However, let's be clear - the fact that black workers and workers from other ethnic minorities suffer racist discrimination and white workers do not, does not mean that white workers have an interest in maintaining this system of discrimination. Being a white worker under capitalism basically means you are not exploited or oppressed to quite the same extent as a black worker, but nonetheless white workers are still oppressed and exploited, which means that they have an interest in uniting with non-white workers, and overthrowing the system that benefits all of the bosses, no matter what colour they are.

The issue of the day is unity. This brings us to the issue of affirmative action. It is obvious that socialists want white and black workers to unite. Affirmative action is a historic gain that has been won through the struggles of black communities against racist state apparatuses and has allowed black youth who might not otherwise be able to move out of crushing poverty to gain access to valuable opportunities such as university education and decent jobs. By itself, affirmative action will never be able to eliminate the legacy of colonialism as well as the forms of structural racism that continue to exist, but we need to recognize that this policy is not something that has been introduced by the bourgeoisie with the aim of dividing the working class along ethnic grounds, or because doing so somehow increases the rate of exploitation - it is a gain that has been extracted from the bourgeoisie against their class interests as a result of pressure from below, in much the same way as the minimum wage, which allows workers to maintain a basic level of wellbeing, despite the efforts of the bosses to cut down on wages and working conditions. In this context, by opposing affirmative action, either because it's unfair for white workers, or because it represents a "band aid", and not a lasting solution to racism, you are positioning yourself to the right of many existing governments, and calling for a historic and progressive gain to be removed, leaving black workers vulnerable to intensified oppression.

This is reactionary not only in itself but also because of the response it is liable to excite from black workers. How can you expect black workers to unite with white workers when a bunch of socialists - who are supposed to function as the most advanced and militant section of the class, equipped with the tools to overcome divisions between workers, and fighting for the interests of all oppressed groups, as "tribunes of the people" - are saying that one of the only things that lets them defend themselves against racist employers should be taken away? On the flip side of the coin, how can you expect white workers to be won over to a principled anti-racist position if you are legitimizing the widespread idea that white workers are being discriminated against by the government, so that (so the argument goes) lazy minorities can benefit, as expressed in the reactionary slogan "racism cuts both ways"? The answer is: you can't expect people to respond in a progressive way if you call for affirmative action or any other gain that has been won by an oppressed group, such as affirmative action for women, to be removed by the state. Instead, you have to offer unconditional support to this important gain, defending it against all attacks, and also offer support to minority workers when they take action against oppression in the future. In this respect there are similarities with the national question. A nation that has a history of denying national rights to other nations has no right to lecture those nations about nationalism. Therefore British socialists, in a country synonymous to many around the world with the empire and the Iraq war, have a duty to support the right of nations who have suffered at our hands to direct their own affairs unmolested, if we ever want workers in oppressed nations to consider us allies in their struggles against capitalism, instead of siding with the bosses of their own state, once imperialist forces have been expelled. The key principle at hand here is siding with the oppressed, and not with our own ruling classes, who benefit from racism and all other forms of discrimination, including sexism and chauvinism. That's why I support affirmative action as long as capitalism and racism continue to exist, alongside reparations for former colonies. Unfortunately I don't think that all forms of racism will disappear on the first day of the new society so I'm prepared to argue for affirmative action and other such policies designed to correct injustices after the revolution as well, as long as inequality of any kind remains.

PS - sorry if any of the points I made have been made before, as I said, I didn't read the whole of the thread.

[Pogue]

Yeh thats fair enough, I was just saying in my experience I don't think I am 'priviliged', because it would suggest that my friends who are black and asian are thus somehow below me and I above them. I recognise racism exists in society particularly in institutions like the police but I don't think this means I am 'priviliged'. I think class is a major determining factor.

For example when you look at the statistics for educational acheivment based on ethnic group there is differentiation between ethnic groups, but then when you look deeper into the statistics you actually find that class is the dividing factor, i.e. across the whole scale, working class Chinese, Afro Carribean, White, etc children all do less well in school than people who could be said to be 'middle class' or basically materially more wealthy. I think you'd find the experiences of a middle class black teenager and a working class one would differ.

At no point was I denying that racism exists and certain groups are more likely to fall victim to it I was just saying in my experience I do not think I am 'priviliged' in my area based on being white, and I do not think there is that much of a difference in treatment between me and my non-white friends.

[Pogue]

Is it not irony that some of the folks screaming against "transphobia" turn around and spout racist libertarian garbage?

No, on second thought, that's pretty much expected from the bourgeois.

What are you talking about? Racist libertarian garbage? What people are you talking about and how are they bourgeois?

[Hiero]

I don't think anyone on this board is in a position to tell me my position in society, I know it and I know what I experience. And I don't think I am 'priviliged' based on my skin colour - this does not cohere to my everyday reality no matter how much people on this board want to tell me it does. I guess that makes me quite lucky to live in an area lacking in loads of structural racism. I cannot think of a single circumstance in which my being white has put me in a priviliged position over my non white friends. When I got my job, an Asian guy was hired the same day as me, same wages, same hours. When I lost my job, a whole bunch of other people lost theirs too, of all skin colours. When I'm at college and school before it I have never experienced racism or 'privilige'. I think that if people want to tell me that where I live I am priviliged for being white they very much lack an understanding of my area, but I think I am much better informed on the situation here than anyone else on this forum.

I really don't know what else to say other then...read up on it?

[Pogue]

I really don't know what else to say other then...read up on it?

What I'd say is stop telling me what my position in society is.

[Hiero]

You refuse to acknowledge a whole basis of academia based on your subjective opinion.

Really your position in society has nothing to do with you.

[ls]

There are quite a few posts that appear to be based on opinions of mine that I don't even have.

One example: you want to scrap healthcare just like you want to scrap affirmative action.

There is nowhere in this thread where I said affirmative action should be scrapped, just that we shouldn't be rallying around it like it's some kind of brilliant thing that works everytime, in fact if you actually read my first post in the thread I merely suggested it didn't have a place in a revolutionary society. On reading back some replies, it seems like these basic facts have simply been ignored and substituted with juicy but entirely non-existent reformist arguments of mine about scrapping it, it's quite amazing really.

My position really is, that many of you are placing too much emphasis on it as a means of levelling the playing field for people who are discriminated against; I'm just saying that it's really nowhere near enough at all.. so why would you "support it". It's used just as much "what it's for" as it is as a tool by the bourgeoisie to manipulate, divide and force us to do things, I'm sure that the "some minorities are better than others" is extremely relevant within this context of it working in Capitalism, employers can selectively discriminate against people from less privileged backgrounds who are "whiter" than the other one.

I am certain that this happens in the UK, quite often.

Anyway, the worm comes crawling out of the woodwork as usual..


Is it not irony that some of the folks screaming against "transphobia" turn around and spout racist libertarian garbage?

Namely me of course, no what's ironic is that you're not restricted or banned for being a third-worldist idiot.


No, on second thought, that's pretty much expected from the bourgeois.

Do you have a knack for being psychic? You have no idea whatsoever of my background. I suggest you go and address the complete dismantling of you and your comrades' opinions in the Belfast thread.

Funny also is that most third-worldists are actually just white petit-bourgeoisie college kids with a thing for white guilt.


It must not be forgotten that my position is wholly in line with Marxism and in fact is entirely based on it (I believe you are an anarchist however so this probably does not have much of an effect on you. It does illustrate however how reactionary ideas stay reactionary after 100 years).

My positions even go as far as to support union elections at some points, actually there are a great amount of people that oppose that from all currents. Such positions apparently mean I'm not actually an anarchist (you also notice my tendency is set to nothing now).


Then stop repeating the reactionary pseudo-racist argument of "judging people on their merits instead of race or gender" within the context of capitalist society because that is an impossibility given the inherent nature of capitalist society as sexist and racist.

The argument originally used by Pogue was used within the context of a revolutionary society, my defense of it is in that context also.

The way we must work to defend rights in a Capitalist society is completely different, as Pogue has said there are much better tactics. It doesn't work properly in the first place: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jan/10/highereducation.uk.

Workers should fight for more control over the recruitment process in the first place, that is to ideally demand an answer as to why each candidate was and wasn't recruited, also internal referrals by already existing workers should be encouraged in workplaces to people that we know could basically do with the job. Also things like this are fantastic: http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18784/index.php, it attacks two birds with one stone; military recruitment using the bourgeoisie's own tactics against them.

[Merces]

I also never felt priviliaged. When my parents moved to Canada from Germany we actually had to well my parents had to scrounge around for recyclable bottles and clean houses and work 12 hours a day. It was a very difficult due to the extreme winter here and high rent prices. My parents left Germany due to heavy discrimination for being Polish there, and never felt as if we because we were white where privilaged, and yet some how we are higher middle class due to unbelievable hard work (worked with my parents on housing since I was 8 until senior year of High school) and we never had any support from the government or from anyone else. We didn't have any well suited connections my parents just had the ambiton to be better, not to mention living in the most crime ridden area of town and being one of the only white people there, already set up for further discrimination by the other "coloured" people there.

So explain this to me. How can lower class individuals, with no transferable credits from their previous universities yet still reach a privilaged position without actually being privilaged based on the fact that we view being white as privilaged?

[Pogue]

You refuse to acknowledge a whole basis of academia based on your subjective opinion.

Really your position in society has nothing to do with you.

OK, so you, someone who has never met me, can objectively tell me my reality, which you know better than me, than me and all the people I live with can?

The arogance of the middle class left is astounding.

[gorillafuck]

OK, so you, someone who has never met me, can objectively tell me my reality, which you know better than me, than me and all the people I live with can?

The arogance of the middle class left is astounding.
You just did the exact same thing that you're complaining about. Assuming you know someone's background.

[Pogue]

I didn't, really. I think its quite a middle class leftist habit to take what they learnt from a complex study to think they have the right to tell me I am 'priviliged' because of my skin colour. Even the Black Panthers were intelligent enough to realise alot of the white working class in the USA had it as bad as the black working class. I think even Marx realised this, which is funny because alot of people calling me priviliged are Marxists.

I oncemore uphold that I don't think anyone else is in a position to tell me what my reality is. I will leave the realities of my 'privilige' to myself and those around me who can judge my position. I'll maintain that I am not 'priviliged' based upon being white in the area where I live. I have already mentioned my main issue is the word 'priviliged'.

[kalu]

Whites shouldn't feel guilty, but they should feel the urgent need to work against white privilege. The fact is that whites continue to benefit from the stolen labor and capital of people of color, whether or not they were personally involved. They benefit from the system of racial discrimination that continues to define white as human and Black as subhuman. Saying "skin color doesn't matter" is a mere platitude these days, and inseparable from liberal notions of equality that continue to prevent a radical redistribution of power.

I have heard good things about Tim Wise's White Like Me for those white comrades who are determined to fight white privilege and work towards true racial justice.

Finally, there is no point reducing inequalities to one privileged form. I do not believe gender oppression is reducible, for example, to capitalist exploitation. I fully agree with Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's assessment that we must theorise an antagonism of the social that recognises the emergent, constitutive antagonisms that generate political subjectivities, rather than attempt a positivist distinction between "base" and "superstructure." The fight against racism is just as important as the fight against capitalist exploitation, and these two mutually produce one another. For example, racial epistemes produce a "permanent underclass" like Blacks in the United States, who are then more frequently subjected to labor exploitation, historical exclusion from unions and so on.

Anyways, while poor whites may exist and have it bad, they still also benefit from white privilege, and while a Black doctor might suffer racism, they may also be rich. Why can't we recognize different forms of privilege and oppression and combat each on its own terms, though perhaps within an overarching radical framework?

[Plagueround]

As many of the posts in this thread demonstrate, one of the advantages that whites have is not having to acknowledge their racial identity nearly as much as people of color do. People don't see the result of any privileges they've experienced because its not as in the open as someone walking up to you on the street and saying "hey, because you're white, here's 200 bucks. Keep up the good work." Sometimes, privilege is not what you experience, but what you never, ever, have to experience.

For a person of color (and as a person of color), you do not have a choice to ignore your racial identity (especially in america). From the day you are born that difference will be defined for you, written for you, and slammed into your head by teachers, police, politicians, and just about every person you ever come in contact with. Despite being mostly of irish descent, the mere fact that I am darker than white people defined my racial identity before I was able to speak.

For the person of color you will be born into a world where there will be a constant, ongoing war on your identity that has been entrenched and propped up by a system bent on keeping you down. And while many people these days don't consider themselves racist and may not be aware of what is being reinforced by perpetuating a society founded on colonialism, racism, and white supremacy, until those institutions are shattered and the foundation they were built on are burned to the ground, then systematically, each and every white person is in a position of privilege.

Now, this does not mean that white people should spend their entire lives feeling guilty. What it means to me is that, especially in the context of leftists, no one should spend their time insisting they are not privileged. To accept that systematic discrimination exists but that you do not benefit from it is, in actuality, not accepting that systematic discrimination exists.

What it does mean is that the white leftist should educate themselves and not reject racially based analysis in favor of vague and broad "freedom for everyone" diatribes which are more rhetoric than actual solutions (see the Huey P Newton thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/huey-p-newton-t115341/index.html?t=115341)for someone doing exactly this). Dismissing the struggle people of color face because you've never lived their experience is reinforcing the foundation of "The house that racism built".

[Muzk]

Noone should feel guilty, but rather fight racism wherever it is, then you shouldn't feel guilty.

Missing an opportunity where it would be your duty to help - that should make you feel guilty

[Reuben]

Guilt - especially mass guilt - is inimical to a revolutionary ethos. The basis of our struggle is that white masses, as well as the black masses, deserve far more than they have. Deserve, in fact, to inherit the earth.

[count66]

By mentioning race in the first place you have demonstrated racism.

I'm so sick of this anti white attitude, which ironically, mainly takes place among white people!

Race is an imaginary divide created by those people who wish to imagine the worlds problems exist from same.

I have family members from third world countries who are non-white (through marraige) they tell me corruption among their own people due to capitalist desires are the problem - not white people!

You can rant on about historical issues but then you detract from those non-white people to think and develop beyond colonialism - so is that not racist within itself?

Capitalism is the enemy - not colour - get over yourself and your labeling of all of us white people as being guilty - you have been listening to, too much propaganda from all sides of the capitalist race divide!

And as for my comrade who is mainly from Irish descent - I'm Irish and let me tell you two things - 1. even if you were white Irish born and bred - go abroad with my accent and your automatically considered a drunk, a street fighter and a member of the IRA, 2. Unfortunately due to capitalist policies, Ireland has experienced a large and very quick immigration situation - where in 10 years the population has gone to 1% being non national to 10% being non-national - including my own wife - this coupled with a recession has led to Ireland being quite a racist place unfortunately - most Irish people still don't understand the destruction of capitalism as we are still as a population getting over the consequences of capitalism and colonialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Race is an imaginary divide created by those people who wish to imagine the worlds problems exist from same.Race certainly lacks validity as a scientific concept but this does not mean that race is irrelevant from the viewpoint of social consciousness, or that Marxists shouldn't discuss the relationship between race and class, as the notion that it is possible to divide humanity into different groups based on skin colour and other psychical characteristics, with some of these groups being better at certain things than others, is deeply ingrained, and non-white workers do suffer oppression and discrimination in a way that is independent of their status as workers, as this thread has shown. For this reason the reality of race as a sociopolitical phenomenon needs to be recognized, and by refusing to recognize this you are essentially saying that the struggles of black populations against racism - from the Civil Rights Movement to more radical struggles, such as the efforts of the Black Panthers to protest black communities against police brutality, provide access to goods and services that the bourgeois state was unwilling to provide, and to alert white leftists to the reality of racial discrimination, as well as the existence of prejudiced attitudes within the left itself - were pointless and a diversion. That's a prejudiced position.


they tell me corruption among their own people due to capitalist desires are the problem - not white people!I don't think anyone would argue that all white people are responsible for underdevelopment and global inequality. I also think most users here would contend that the causes of underdevelopment like in the impact of colonialism, the ongoing exploitation of these countries through institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, which maintain the capitalist-world system on terms that are favorable to countries that have already achieved a high level of economic development and have the ability to control these institutions as they see fit, as well as imperialist wars in the Middle East and other parts of the world, carried out in order to secure control of valuable natural resources and markets. Whilst corruption is also significant it's too simple to say that corruption and imperialism are two separate and mutually-oppossed explanations for the condition of the developing world, not only because corrupt governments are frequently supported by imperialist powers when they are willing to protect the interests of those powers by not challenging the property of multinational corporations, but also because a great deal of corruption occurs amongst low-level government employees, who, because of underdevelopment, may be payed infrequently, or not at all, and therefore resort to corruption to supplement their income.

It's worth pointing out that your use of the term "white people" to refer to, well, all white people, is rather strange, because one of the points that supports the non-scientific nature of race is that what constitutes being white is not the same throughout the world - the people who are widely considered white in countries like Brazil might be seen as black if they traveled to a country where the majority of the population has a fair skin colour, like the UK, or the United States, and treated accordingly. You can see from the way Obama - someone who is mixed race and substantially "whiter" than most black people simply in terms of his physical appearance - has been treated in the United States that the designation of who is black and who is white follows no objective or consistent standard.


You can rant on about historical issues but then you detract from those non-white people to think and develop beyond colonialism - so is that not racist within itself?Acknowledging the impact of "historic issues" like colonialism (which is not actually "historic" at all, but ongoing) is hardly the exclusive preserve of white people. Some of the foremost non-white intellectuals have focused on how colonial attitudes and processes have extended into the post-colonial era and continue to influence the way people in western countries perceive the developing world, the most obvious example being Edward Said's Orientalism.


Unfortunately due to capitalist policies, Ireland has experienced a large and very quick immigration situationWhy do you think immigration is a bad thing?

[pastradamus]

]Unfortunately due to capitalist policies, Ireland has experienced a large and very quick immigration situation



Why do you think immigration is a bad thing?

I believe what he was talking about was the fact that Capital is the main driving force behind Immigration. He's obviously not saying its a bad thing if he's married an Immigrant. I believe he's simply examining why it happens.

[BobKKKindle$]

I believe what he was talking about was the fact that Capital is the main driving force behind Immigration. He's obviously not saying its a bad thing if he's married an Immigrant. I believe he's simply examining why it happens.

Except, the facts don't really support the assumption that immigration leads directly to racism. I don't know much about the situation in Ireland so maybe you can offer your opinion on that issue, but in the UK, the areas where BNP councilors have been elected are not those which have received large numbers of immigrants over the past decade or are home to large ethnic-minority populations; rather, the exact reverse is true - it's generally areas that are overwhelmingly white and isolated from demographic trends such as changes in ethnic composition that turn to the BNP, and most of the people who vote for the BNP and over right-wing parties like UKIP are not, contrary to popular myth, and a lot of the analysis that the left has put forward recently, former Labour voters, but former Tory voters, and (as you would expect, given the social base of the Tories) generally middle-class. Now, none of this is to say that no working class people vote for the BNP, or that they don't pose a threat, but it's far too simplistic to say that immigration leads to racism, even when it's combined with other factors like the recession.

[pastradamus]

Except, the facts don't really support the assumption that immigration leads directly to racism. I don't know much about the situation in Ireland so maybe you can offer your opinion on that issue

Certainly,

As is the case in many nations, Recently we have experienced our country undergo a hard-core recession hit climate which hit us hard considering we, only ten years previously, hand one of the biggest economic booms in history. Now because of the recent recession we have a lot of people out of work, a lot of angry people who are starting to listen to the idiotic pub politics of "those immigrants took our jobs, its their fault". Obviously anti-immigrant racist sentiment spawns from this and is a direct affront to working class unity. I know it sounds simple but its true, if I got a penny from every idiot saying that.


but in the UK, the areas where BNP councilors have been elected are not those which have received large numbers of immigrants over the past decade or are home to large ethnic-minority populations; rather, the exact reverse is true - it's generally areas that are overwhelmingly wide and isolated from demographic trends such as changes in ethnic composition that turn to the BNP, and most of the people who vote for the BNP and over right-wing parties like UKIP are not, contrary to popular myth, and a lot of the analysis that the left has put forward recently, former Labour voters, but former Tory voters, and (as you would expect, given the social base of the Tories) generally middle-class. Now, none of this is to say that no working class people vote for the BNP, or that they don't pose a threat, but it's far too simplistic to say that immigration leads to racism, even when it's combined with other factors like the recession.

Indeed, thankfully in the republic we dont have an Irish BNP thus far, people are not interested in the immigration control platform or the National party. Worryingly enough it is growing fast in Northern Loyalist circles at the moment. Now, Im not saying immigration leads to racism by default, but mix it up with a recession and a far-rgiht wing racist party and Immigration becomes racism through the medium of BNP-like lies and anti-worker sentiment coming from the said sources.

[black magick hustla]

As many of the posts in this thread demonstrate, one of the advantages that whites have is not having to acknowledge their racial identity nearly as much as people of color do. People don't see the result of any privileges they've experienced because its not as in the open as someone walking up to you on the street and saying "hey, because you're white, here's 200 bucks. Keep up the good work." Sometimes, privilege is not what you experience, but what you never, ever, have to experience.

For a person of color (and as a person of color), you do not have a choice to ignore your racial identity (especially in america). From the day you are born that difference will be defined for you, written for you, and slammed into your head by teachers, police, politicians, and just about every person you ever come in contact with. Despite being mostly of irish descent, the mere fact that I am darker than white people defined my racial identity before I was able to speak.

For the person of color you will be born into a world where there will be a constant, ongoing war on your identity that has been entrenched and propped up by a system bent on keeping you down. And while many people these days don't consider themselves racist and may not be aware of what is being reinforced by perpetuating a society founded on colonialism, racism, and white supremacy, until those institutions are shattered and the foundation they were built on are burned to the ground, then systematically, each and every white person is in a position of privilege.

Now, this does not mean that white people should spend their entire lives feeling guilty. What it means to me is that, especially in the context of leftists, no one should spend their time insisting they are not privileged. To accept that systematic discrimination exists but that you do not benefit from it is, in actuality, not accepting that systematic discrimination exists.

What it does mean is that the white leftist should educate themselves and not reject racially based analysis in favor of vague and broad "freedom for everyone" diatribes which are more rhetoric than actual solutions (see the Huey P Newton thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/huey-p-newton-t115341/index.html?t=115341)for someone doing exactly this). Dismissing the struggle people of color face because you've never lived their experience is reinforcing the foundation of "The house that racism built".

The question that arises is if there is any political merit in pride based on an identity that was slammed in your face by power structures.

[Plagueround]

The question that arises is if there is any political merit in pride based on an identity that was slammed in your face by power structures.

Pride? To be blunt, who the fuck said anything about pride?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I can't even believe that somebody here is making the argument that affirmitive action is 'patronising'. So, that presumes that non-white people and women have a lesser chance of employment due to legitimate circumstances, that they have the responsibility to rectify!

Affirmative action fails because it doesn't address the actual problem of white privilege. It just circumnavigates a few individuals around, pissing off particular whites (and, as polls show, a very large plurality of ethnic minorities), reinforcing the idea "minorities" are so weak that they need a "leg up," and fueling more division between the "races."

Anti-discrimination lawsuits are one thing; affirmative action is another. Yes, we each have the responcibility to rectify the issue of white privilege (and on a larger scale, racism in general).

[9]

Affirmative action fails because it doesn't address the actual problem of white privilege. It just circumnavigates a few individuals around, pissing off particular whites (and, as polls show, a very large plurality of ethnic minorities), reinforcing the idea "minorities" are so weak that they need a "leg up," and fueling more division between the "races."


Do people who receive affirmative action, by and large, think that it fails? Or are the people suggesting it fails, by and large, people who do not receive it? That is an important question.

Also, I think the inherent nature of reforms is such that they leave broader, more pressing issues unresolved. Forty-hour work-week and minimum wage don't address the underlying problem of wage slavery, does that mean they "fail"? Does that mean they're bad and we should oppose them? I certainly don't think so. I don't think reforms were ever expected or intended to provide any sort of revolutionary solution to the respective problems they address - that's why reformism is not revolutionary.
That most certainly does not, however, mean that we should oppose or seek to abolish reforms and various other political gains made by minorities and the working class as a whole which increase their quality of life under the present system. Doing so would, in my opinion, be profoundly reactionary and far more divisive than any reform could ever be.

[Led Zeppelin]

Affirmative action fails because it doesn't address the actual problem of white privilege. It just circumnavigates a few individuals around, pissing off particular whites (and, as polls show, a very large plurality of ethnic minorities),


That is not true, and if you had bothered to read the thread before posting in it you would have seen that claim being refuted, but I'll repost it:


Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.

Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).
Link (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)

It's also refuted, quite eloquently and along with all the other anti-Affirmative Action BS, in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4ZdR1alqmM

[Schrödinger's Cat]

LZ, your entire post was an assumptive response to something I did not say. I was referring to the Gallup poll, which shows a very large proportion of ethnic moralities (a plurality of Hispanics, in fact) oppose affirmative action based in racial criteria. The judgment of others is simply one component.

Which also leads back to...


Do people who receive affirmative action, by and large, think that it fails? Or are the people suggesting it fails, by and large, people who do not receive it? That is an important question.

[Abc]

I feel rather bad about living in the U.S. and being white, because whites stole this land from the Native Americans i kind of feel like i'm living in someone elses home without there permission

[Plagueround]

I feel rather bad about living in the U.S. and being white, because whites stole this land from the Native Americans i kind of feel like i'm living in someone elses home without there permission

We checked, and you're cool. You can stay.

[Pogue]

We checked, and you're cool. You can stay.

Could you issue me a visa if I ever want to come and visit?

[Mujer Libre]

If Plagueround wants to open a visa, green card and passport office in his basement he should probably start a thread in DIY. :closedeyes: