White Privilige [Archive]

Plagueround

18th August 2009, 03:10

Some of this response is from the other thread, because I don't feel like repeating myself.

To those who believe that white people are priviliged:

Do you think this is the same the world over?

More or less. As counterblast pointed out, the world is a global system which was built on systematic oppression. The tools of this oppression were not just government, religion, and capitalism, but racism and sexism as well. The only exceptions I could see would be areas where other ethnic groups are dominant and have not been subjugated by colonialist or imperialist powers, which is to say, not many.

Do you think this transcends class boundaries? For example how do you deal with rich/bourgeois black people, Obama, black cops, etc.While some people have managed to transcend class boundaries (as capitalism is not entirely without social mobility, just very poor at it), they are still very much victims of institutionalized racism. Even Barack Obama is a perfect example of this. He's as much white as he is black, but he is identified, vilified, and hated because of his "black half". As I described in the white guilt thread, a person of color does not have a choice to ignore their 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. Barack Obama is not only an example of this, he's one of the most extreme examples.

How do you think we can fight against white privilige?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. If the socialist is not prepared to fight for the most oppressed and most brutalized victims of capitalism, they're not much of a socialist.

In this fight, what role can white people themselves play, if any?Understand that as a system, capitalism was designed to stack the deck in the favor of rich, white, males. While everyone's experience is different, and being a white male that is born into an affluent family does not make one a criminal or an automatic bigot, they must understand that they have a social privilege that others do not. As an indigenous person in America, I consider it part of my "duty" as a socialist to emphasize the engineered inequality that capitalism was created on and depends on. Rejecting this type of analysis as a white person does nothing to further the socialist cause, even if the reason presented is a broader class based approach, as to do so is a rejection of the material conditions of capitalism's existence (which we are fighting). It is just as important for the white socialist to emphasize the discrimination that capitalism thrives on and demonstrate how it was made to favor certain individuals, otherwise any promise to demolish these institutions are empty.

manic expression

18th August 2009, 03:56

Yes. Just because a country or community is composed mostly of people of color they are still caught up in the global system of capitalism, and by default, white dominance.

I definitely agree on the global nature of capitalism. However, are the workers of India under "white dominance"? Of course American imperialism is an ever-present factor in the politics of about every region in the world, but the bourgeoisie of India is fully Indian and fully capitalist.

This is exactly the reason communist movements led by people of color are so quick to critique white communist movements.What examples do you have in mind? Most "white communist movements" in my experience (that is genuinely revolutionary organizations in mostly-European-descended countries) have a great number of non-white nationalities represented, oftentimes in leadership positions.

The tools of this oppression were not just government, religion, and capitalism, but racism and sexism as well. The only exceptions I could see would be areas where other ethnic groups are dominant and have not been subjugated by colonialist or imperialist powers, which is to say, not many.

These things are not siblings, one is the root of them all. The racism we know today is a direct product of capitalism: modern racism developed closely in conjunction with the abolition of slave-based production (new form of production, new forms of division). The same goes for sexism, religious discrimination, government oppression and so on.

Even Barack Obama is a perfect example of this. He's as much white as he is black, but he is identified, vilified, and hated because of his "black half".When was the last time Obama had to face criticism for his Black ancestry in the mainstream of American politics?

White people don't all ignore their "racial identity", either.

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."Each and every white person is in a position of privilege"? Even the semi-conscious homeless guy who sleeps in a NYC train station? Even the kid who's beaten by his drunk father every night? Well, they're both white males, so obviously they're in a position of privilege, and that really helps when they're trying to get that precious hour of rest on that dirty floor, or when their delirious father hits them over the head again and again and again. Those beneficiaries of white privilege have a funny way of showing it, don't they?

While everyone's experience is different, and being a white male that is born into an affluent family does not make one a criminal or an automatic bigot, they must understand that they have a social privilege that others do not.Again, what of whites who are born into poor, dysfunctional or non-existent families? It's not about race, then, is it?

khad

18th August 2009, 04:00

"Each and every white person is in a position of privilege"? Even the semi-conscious homeless guy who sleeps in a NYC train station?
Absolutely. Black homeless people get even more shit than their white counterparts. Just from the personal experience of one of my anarchist friends who was homeless at one point, it was that much easier to beg because he was white.

manic expression

18th August 2009, 04:08

Absolutely. Black homeless people get even more shit than their white counterparts. Just from the personal experience of one of my anarchist friends who was homeless at one point, it was that much easier to beg because he was white.

I can see that, but then again a lot of homeless people collect cans to survive (or actually work a wage-paying job, which to be honest still shocks me) as opposed to begging. Nevertheless, I have trouble ascribing any privilege to the homeless, especially when the Black bourgeoisie is doing just fine for itself (and, may I add, the chorus of "white privilege" is increasingly being used by Black capitalists and their allies).

khad

18th August 2009, 04:12

I can see that, but then again a lot of homeless people collect cans to survive (or actually work a wage-paying job, which to be honest still shocks me) as opposed to begging. Nevertheless, I have trouble ascribing any privilege to the homeless, especially when the Black bourgeoisie is doing just fine for itself (and, may I add, the chorus of "white privilege" is increasingly being used by Black capitalists and their allies).
But within every socioeconomic category, it is a social fact that whites have relative advantages over non-white groups. That is white privilege. There is no point in redefining the term on a whim just to declare it invalid.

Furthermore, your point about the black bourgeoisie is rather off the argument. According to most black leftists, the black bourgeoisie is part of the white capitalist power structure.

Bright Banana Beard

18th August 2009, 04:23

Do you think this is the same the world over?Generally, yes. Today's world see light skin a considerable more acceptance and prosperity into the society. We must destroy this idea.

Do you think this transcends class boundaries? For example how do you deal with rich/bourgeois black people, Obama, black cops, etc.By fighting and showing the true nature of the bourgeois using minority figure as a bait. Bourgeoisie will never destroy racism and will use it despite being in denial.

How do you think we can fight against white privilege?Ensuring that all oppressed people will need to take on more role on society and helping them exposed about the privilege.

In this fight, what role can white people themselves play, if any? One way is to admit this guilt and actually argue on destroying the unjust privilege, also to help exposing it even more while you can do it.
Also expose how racist the system is, and explain how it helps secure the privilege.

which doctor

18th August 2009, 04:26

No. But I don't think in a 'black' country it'd change, because, the only example I got now is some bourgeoise show where some rich girl went to africa for a week - where she was happily greeted, and had LOTS of privileges - she was a special guest. They lived in mud huts though, out in the wilderness.
I wouldn't want to enter a 'black ghetto' in america either. Don't even know if those exist or if it's just a lie.
(Black ghetto as in an overpopulated area with black people, 'gangstas', who... do things to white people coming along.)
Still, it might just be a stupid lie spread by racists
It is a stupid lie, though it is spread, not just by racists, but throughout the dominant culture. A few blocks from where I live is one of these black ghettos, and trust me, it is certainly a ghetto. It's overwhelmingly black, poverty-ridden, and garbage is everywhere since they only get a fraction of the city services other neighborhoods get. Groceries are limited to the corner stores, liquor marts are aplenty, and drug dealers do populate the streets. Despite all this, these neighborhoods retain a vibrant culture all their own. As a white person I can't say I wouldn't be weary of traveling through these neighborhoods at night, but when I have ventured into them, but I've always felt my reception surprisingly warm. An understanding of what the racial and economic tensions that create these kinds of communities goes a long way in seeing them for what they really are. I think Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh's book Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor does a very good job of illuminating the intricacies of the ghetto economy that the mass media and white culture do a good job of denying.

Racism manifests itself in a multitude of ways and one of them is white privilege. It might be hard to notice if you live in a racially homogeneous community, but there's no doubt that white people enjoy certain privileges that people of color don't. For a further treatment on this subject I suggest the short read "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh, link: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

That being said, it's important to remember that skin color is not the defining characteristic of people. Hierarchies exist everywhere in society and are all interconnected, whether they be via gender, sexuality, class, skin color, age, speech, family, etc.

manic expression

18th August 2009, 05:18

But within every socioeconomic category, it is a social fact that whites have relative advantages over non-white groups. That is white privilege. There is no point in redefining the term on a whim just to declare it invalid.

I don't think we can ascribe privilege to white homeless people because of one experience; real privilege in that situation would come from who can find a relatively safe shelter, etc., not from one person getting more crap from others (as you put it). Being white doesn't get you a nice shelter, it doesn't make collecting cans any easier, that's the real point here.

Furthermore, your point about the black bourgeoisie is rather off the argument. According to most black leftists, the black bourgeoisie is part of the white capitalist power structure.The Black bourgeoisie shows that the capitalist class is not exclusively white, does it not? Calling them part of a "white capitalist power structure" doesn't make sense when Black capitalists are part of the Black nation and bourgeois all at once. Why cannot the Black bourgeoisie be seen as Black? After all, they are.

Racism manifests itself in a multitude of ways and one of them is white privilege. It might be hard to notice if you live in a racially homogeneous community, but there's no doubt that white people enjoy certain privileges that people of color don't. For a further treatment on this subject I suggest the short read "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh, link: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

I'm not against everyone who employs the term "white privilege" (even though it almost always irks me), but please don't push Peggy McIntosh here. Her writings are absurd even by their own assumptions, and her assumptions come from an exclusively suburban mentality. Just look at the first item on that list, it's simply ridiculous by any standard.

Plagueround

18th August 2009, 07:11

I definitely agree on the global nature of capitalism. However, are the workers of India under "white dominance"? Of course American imperialism is an ever-present factor in the politics of about every region in the world, but the bourgeoisie of India is fully Indian and fully capitalist.

The indian bourgeoisie is a result of throwing off white colonialist domination. Even then, they still have many, many ties to it.

These things are not siblings, one is the root of them all. The racism we know today is a direct product of capitalism: modern racism developed closely in conjunction with the abolition of slave-based production (new form of production, new forms of division). The same goes for sexism, religious discrimination, government oppression and so on.While I agree that such things were definite tools in establishing capitalism, it would be naive to pretend that they didn't exist before hand. Otherwise, no disagreement.

When was the last time Obama had to face criticism for his Black ancestry in the mainstream of American politics?Currently, there is a persistent movement to get him to admit his american birth certificate is a fake, the tea party protests featured some extremely racist depictions, and he has been (hilariously) accused by major pundits and politicians of being a "racist" and "black supremacist".

White people don't all ignore their "racial identity", either.No, but they're much more likely to be in a position where they can. Tim Wise's video that LZ posted covers this nicely.

"Each and every white person is in a position of privilege"? Even the semi-conscious homeless guy who sleeps in a NYC train station? Even the kid who's beaten by his drunk father every night? Well, they're both white males, so obviously they're in a position of privilege, and that really helps when they're trying to get that precious hour of rest on that dirty floor, or when their delirious father hits them over the head again and again and again. Those beneficiaries of white privilege have a funny way of showing it, don't they?As stated before, they are privileged compared to a person of color in the same situation. It should be noted that privilege should not be confused with easy living or a free ride. This is why its extremely important to not reject class in favor of a race based analysis (especially since race is still a mere social construct), but a class based analysis should include race or it is no longer an accurate analysis.

Again, what of whites who are born into poor, dysfunctional or non-existent families? It's not about race, then, is it?The other half of my family (my mother's side) is composed of poor, working class, irish and scottish immigrants. They had it extremely tough growing up and spent most of their lives in poverty with an ailing mother and a house of nine children. Many of them currently have broken homes lke you describe. However, this does not change the fact that they are far less likely to be victims of racial discrimination when looking for a job, going to school, crossing the street, getting a burger, attempting to pick up a date, or do any number of things to better their own lives in a society that was built by and for white supremacists.

Pogue

18th August 2009, 13:04

I want to here more reponses on what white people can do about it. I am a white male so according to you I am priviliged. People have criticised me on this topic, so what can I meaningfully do? I don't see anything I can do that I'm not already doing, i.e. anti-racist stuff, arguing anti-racist stuff whenever it comes up, fighting racist parties, and generally stressing equality and the end of capitalism.

Also, do you think this system of white privilige is engrained in the UK as much as in the US? For example, my Asian friend John. He lives in a similar house to me, went to the same school got similar if not better grades in our exams, goes to the same parties, etc. Where am I experiencing privilige over him? We both have an almost identical class background and it seems our prospects are the same.

Btw, this excludes the police, I know the police are racist, I saw tha on the Palestine demos last winter.

I think what alot of people don't understand about my position was that I wasn't denying that due to deeply engrained racism white people don't have some social advantages in regards to the cops, but what I was saying is the reality of me and my non white friends is not that I am 'priviliged' over them. Much too strong a word, doesn't cohere to our reality.

Pirate turtle the 11th

18th August 2009, 13:29

First thing that needs saying. Any trendy anti racist who feels the need to apologize for being white is a ****. And please note when i say black I mean non-white.

Do you think this is the same the world over?

In economic terms yes. Black folk are far more likely to live in a shithole and have a shit start in life as a result of hundreds years of open discrimination as well as instituationlized racism meaning that Blacks are less likely to have people "throw the ladder down" for lack of a better term to help them climb up class/social wise. But that said in local terms there are probably areas in which you are likely to expirence people with a hostile attitude towards you based on skin colour. (Based on the white person being different but unlike anti-black racism its unlikely they will think your stupid/a thug but more likely just an unpleasant person as the result of anti-black racism by whites.

Do you think this transcends class boundaries? For example how do you deal with rich/bourgeois black people, Obama, black cops, etc.

Yeah probably but I imagine you get to a point when you have so much power that what you look like isn't an issue outside of PR.

How do you think we can fight against white privilige?

Obvious targeting of openly anti working class groups such as the front or the BNP , also class struggle makes common intrest more visible between workers. That and on a social level not allowing racist comments about nappyheads or whatever inside of your social circle. Its a tough one really because theres so many ways to fuck this up but I generally think united people on workplace and community grounds will allow an division on the grounds of racism (or sexism or homophobia or whatever) to be overcome by the need to unite to wage a more efficient class war.

In this fight, what role can white people themselves play, if any?

Not tolerating racist shit. Working towards working class unity against the ruling class. Turning up to anti racist stuff , i think we need a strong white presence in many anti racism orgs so it dosent appear as blacks v whites but rather normal people against racist hacks.

Pirate turtle the 11th

18th August 2009, 13:33

Where am I experiencing privilige over him? We both have an almost identical class background and it seems our prospects are the same.

Come down to kent, talk to people see who gets the better response based on appernce.

Pogue

18th August 2009, 15:26

Come down to kent, talk to people see who gets the better response based on appernce.

But I've already said I don't deny racism exists. I am the last person who needs to be told racism exists. What I am saying is that this doesn't make me 'priviliged', I've already said its too strong a word that a) Connotes I've done something wrong and b) Implies I am almost helpless, or that what I am doing (the things you listed that have often got me in the shits, as in fights) isn't enough and I am still a hopeless case of white chauvinism. I think this is a bullshit way to approach it and I prefer my own approach alot more, which is basically what you outlined.

I don't think I need to come to Kent to find that one out really, and I dislike the patrnonising tone being used on this topic which suggests despite living in the most multi-cultural area of the country whilst also bordering some areas renowned for racism I am ignorant of the problems of racism.

manic expression

18th August 2009, 15:39

The indian bourgeoisie is a result of throwing off white colonialist domination. Even then, they still have many, many ties to it.

Right, that's mostly my contention: the Indian bourgeoisie is Indian, and has worked hand-in-hand with the British and American capitalists before and after their independence. If this is true, it's not about white domination, it's about Indian owners of capital exploiting workers.

While I agree that such things were definite tools in establishing capitalism, it would be naive to pretend that they didn't exist before hand. Otherwise, no disagreement.

No disagreement, I suppose. The thing is that while forms of racism (and tribalism, provincialism, etc.) existed before capitalism, the ideologies behind modern racism developed relatively recently. Classical and Medieval Europe wasn't stricken with true racism, as culture and religion (respectively) were instead the social measuring sticks of the day. If we don't recognize this, then we lose the insight of a materialist study of history and society.

Currently, there is a persistent movement to get him to admit his american birth certificate is a fake, the tea party protests featured some extremely racist depictions, and he has been (hilariously) accused by major pundits and politicians of being a "racist" and "black supremacist".

OK, that's a valid point.

No, but they're much more likely to be in a position where they can. Tim Wise's video that LZ posted covers this nicely.

If you ask me, suburbia is what really allows "whites" to ignore race. Whites in urban locales are very aware of their race, not only as whites but as Italians, Irish, Jews, WASPs, mulattoes and so on. In suburbia, this isn't the case nearly as much, and being white is just accepted as normal. We should remember, however, that this was not always the case, and whites in many American cities before WWII were more than conscious of which neighborhoods were safe for their ethnicity and which ones were not.

As stated before, they are privileged compared to a person of color in the same situation. It should be noted that privilege should not be confused with easy living or a free ride. This is why its extremely important to not reject class in favor of a race based analysis (especially since race is still a mere social construct), but a class based analysis should include race or it is no longer an accurate analysis.

As I responded to that previous statement, I'm skeptical to the assignment of privilege to all white homeless people, as being white doesn't get you better shelter or make it easier to collect cans or save you from freezing to death. Thus, I think the example is still valid, and it brings into question the reliance on "white privilege" as a political analysis.

The other half of my family (my mother's side) is composed of poor, working class, irish and scottish immigrants. They had it extremely tough growing up and spent most of their lives in poverty with an ailing mother and a house of nine children. Many of them currently have broken homes lke you describe. However, this does not change the fact that they are far less likely to be victims of racial discrimination when looking for a job, going to school, crossing the street, getting a burger, attempting to pick up a date, or do any number of things to better their own lives in a society that was built by and for white supremacists.

I reject the assumption that that family was necessarily better off than all other black working-class families. You contend that they are, while poor, less likely to be discriminated on the basis of their ethnicity. Fair enough. However, we are not to pretend that working-class life revolves around race, for it does not; and we are not to ascribe privilege to victims solely because they are fortunate enough not to be targeted in an additional manner.

Pogue

18th August 2009, 16:05

(I posted this in the CC too in regards to a debate we had that got a bit muddled)

I want to make clear my issue was with the idea of me being 'priviliged' (and I made it clear that I was annoyed with the term, and the term alone) based on my skin colour. I never denied racism. I also said I was only talking about my personal experience, i.e. where I have worked and lived I don't think I am 'priviliged' over my black and asian mates because this simply doesn't relate to my reality, i.e. I don't think I am part of the priviliged group of people and they form the un-priviliged lot. I don't like this artifical divide.

What I was also saying was that I don't see it as a problem of white privilige but of racism. Racism that exists in some places more than others. Because I am not racist but am also white I've never given or received racism. But I've experienced it through my involvement in anti-fascism obviously.

I know black people, especially black women, are discriminated in the workplace. It'd be stupid to ignore this. I should have made it clearer earlier, cos when I spoke about workplace I was saying I think alot of places now aren't so discriminatory. I was again talking about my area. I've never experienced this where I work because I worked in a multi-cultural workplace. I am aware some people may have been annoyed by this, I am sorry if I didn't make it that clear.

My problem was not denying that as a white person, a white male, I do not encounter some of the predjudice non-white people do in this country, it was with the idea of me having white privilige, as an thing I can't escape that I automatically must have for being white. I didn't like the wording, especially when applied to me because I think out of people as a whole you'd definately find me to be very conciouss of 'racial' issues and I address this regularly. I.e. I argue with people who say racist stuff, I've been decked a fair few times for this and all, not wanting to try and sound like a martyr or a hardman but thats just what I've experienced.

I would thus like to propose the way I see it to make it clear and see what certain people think about this perspective:

As a white male in a world/country where historically white males have been historically dominant (through force, discrimination, etc, based on the legacy of slavery, patriarchy, general ruling class violence) I naturally have less barriers in terms of social discrimination. I.e. I wont ever experience institutional racism, and my encounter with predjudice towards me based on my skin colour will only come from individuals.

Seeing as the TUC studies show there is still racism in employment in this country I will experience this but from the perspective of not having it directed against me if that makes sense. This differs from place to place (under capitalism exploitation/discrimination is not uniform from region to region or even workplace to workplace). Also with this police (something I have made clear form the beginning, I believe the police is racist, in fact I know this).

Where this places me: Well I am involved in anti-racist stuff already, I am vocal about anti-racist stuff and have been involved in stuff against racism, i.e. anti-fascist stuff. I am involved in union politics and obviously as a revolutionary I strive for absolute equality anyway. My role is as I do at the moment - recognising and opposing racism. I don't see how there is anything I have to do in regards to this I don't do already. Another thing that annoyed me which made me mroe hostile in this debate was the idea I am some sort of priviliged white man sitting in a castle oblivious to the racism around me. This is an insult personally because on a street level I am involvedin anti-racist stuff, and I choose to involve myself in things I don't have too - i.e. rather than just happily sit here not confronting white racists because I am white and they don't dislike me, I have got involved in anti-racist stuff. This is why I don't like the idea of me being some sort of castle communist or something.

The reason perhaps why alot of suers thought I was relagating racism or whatever is because to me it simply doesn't inform my worldview beyond blatant opposition to it, you don't grow up in the area I have grown up with and have some sort of arogant or naive attitude towards people who are not white. Because I've been schooled alongside asian and black kids who had the same academic abilities as me and as far as I saw and they said, were treated the same, this created a viision for me that racism was shit, where it manifested itself openly we'd oppose it (for me this tends to be on a street level or on demos, as I'm not currently deeply involved in workplace anti-discrmination stuff). This gives me a view of absolute equality that I hold as true. I've never discriminated and where I've experienced discrimination as I've said its been in its most obvious means, i.e. someone racially absuing someone out and about, etc. And I've fought this.

I think this debate has certainly made me think on what my position on racism needs to be, preceisely the racism I wont see so easily because I wont be a victim of it. I never denied this but due to my experience it was nothing I ever really encountered. For example a colleague never complained of racism and none of my mates have ever really discussed it. I don't think this represents ignorance on my part I think it is simply that I grew up in an environment where I was blissfully unaware of predjudices outside of your typical nasty bastard calling someone a paki on the streets.

So yeh I wanted to clear it up and outline my position because there was misunderstanding. I think this debate is interesting as long as both sides respect the impact of what is being said, i.e. for me it could offend some members of the board that I take objection to the idea of me being priviliged, or my terminology is wrong or whatever, making it seem like I am ignoring the issue of wider social predjudices, and for others it could offend me for someone to just say I am priviliged inplying I don't do anything about it, that I am turned off to racist issues (a 4 hour coachride and 4 further hours sqauring off to the BNP on my saturday counts against this) because this too is offensive to me, and also slightly funny seeing as people take the piss out of me for being so turned on to these issues (for example when someone impersonates a stereotypical African and I get pissed off and they go off on one about how i'm being boring - regular occurence).

I think this was neccesary because this issue was one full of misunderstanding that was causing bad blood where it didn't need to happen because both sides were not really listening to what the other was trying to say.

Killfacer

18th August 2009, 16:47

vile bigot.

Jimmie Higgins

18th August 2009, 17:20

Jimmie Higgins

18th August 2009, 17:37

Nevertheless, I have trouble ascribing any privilege to the homeless, especially when the Black bourgeoisie is doing just fine for itself (and, may I add, the chorus of "white privilege" is increasingly being used by Black capitalists and their allies).

Well... I agree that I don't think it can be described as a privilege to be able to beg with less police harassment. I mean, if the left argues that it's a privileged to be homeless and only get harassed by the cops once a day rather than 5 times a day (for a non white homeless person)... we are setting a low standard for ourselves.

However, the black bourgeoisie is still subject to racism - in fact, you can be a post-racial professor in a liberal town and still get arrested for talking back to a cop as we all have just seen. Of course middle and ruling class blacks and women and LGBT people have different class interests and a different experience than working class people of the same oppressed group, but they are still subject to racism/sexism/homophobia.

Pirate turtle the 11th

18th August 2009, 22:46

But I've already said I don't deny racism exists. I am the last person who needs to be told racism exists.

You were asking how you had an advantage and I answered..

What I am saying is that this doesn't make me 'priviliged', I've already said its too strong a word that a) Connotes I've done something wrong and b) Implies I am almost helpless, or that what I am doing (the things you listed that have often got me in the shits, as in fights) isn't enough and I am still a hopeless case of white chauvinism. I think this is a bullshit way to approach it and I prefer my own approach alot more, which is basically what you outlined.

Well of course whit prvilige is a shit term its an americanized leftist-ghetto term , its going to be shit isnt it. I cant think of a realistic term at the moment.

I don't think I need to come to Kent to find that one out really,

No but where you live people tend to think of people seen to look foreign differently. If your mate comes down here chances are people are going to be scared of him. Because people in kent especially kids who dont work and whose parents keep them in there town are very unlikely to meet many black people and henceforth identify them by what they see on the tele.

and I dislike the patrnonising tone being used on this topic which suggests despite living in the most multi-cultural area of the country whilst also bordering some areas renowned for racism I am ignorant of the problems of racism.

No I never intended to lecture you I answered your questions which you had obviously put in place to start a debate. I had the impression it was more along the lines of everyone state there opinion and have a verbal punch up rather that the patronize pogue session.

19th August 2009, 02:37

I haven’t read all the responses, I am short on time, so forgive me if my point has already been made.
There was a set of video clips posted on here the other day that, I think, addressed the issue of white privilege very well. If you can find the time, you should check them out (the guy's name was Tim...something: Glass or Stein or some other one-syllable Jewish-sounding name).
A lot of the issue, or at least the disagreement on the issue, around here seems to be with regard to semantics. Which is rather petty, primarily because it’s such a minuscule discrepancy relative to the larger issue, which is more or less, institutionalized racism and its persistence and pervasiveness as a determining factor in society. Naturally, many white people do not feel “privileged” and thus disagree with the term. But it isn’t about leading a cushy life with abundant luxuries – that is not exactly the connotation of the word ‘privilege’ in this context. It is about white people having opportunities, relative liberties, and better standards of living that are largely denied to people of color. And of course, the typical response to this is “that doesn’t mean I’m privileged, it merely means I don’t have to deal with some of the shit that people of color do”. Which is incorrect and correct; it does mean you’re privileged, and you’re privileged precisely because you don’t have to deal with ‘some of the shit that people of color do’, but its also more complicated than that. It means you have a set of advantages that people of color do not have, and that you are, as a white person, inherently part of the power structure that is responsible for oppressing people of color as well as the dominant narrative that serves (sometimes covertly) as an enabler and apologist for this ongoing oppression.
This doesn’t mean that, as white people, we are doomed to the status of ‘oppressor’ and we should give up because we have no choice. It means that the issues of white “advantage” and institutionalized racism are real, tangible, ongoing problems that require introspection (with regard to our own role in this power structure) and proactive confrontation. Ignoring the issue, or devaluing it over matters of semantics, or flat out denying the issue exists in the first place only perpetuates the problem and demonstrates complicity in oppression. And, of course, I don’t claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do think that the first and most obvious step for white revolutionary leftists of all stripes is to establish a consensus that ‘white privilege’ and institutionalized discrimination do indeed exist as pervasive elements of society and must be addressed as such. If we can’t even get that far, then certainly in that case, the outlook is very bleak.

Plagueround

19th August 2009, 03:20

I agree and think radicals should not use the term "white privilege" - it is a term that comes from academic identity politics and implies that all white people benefit from racism.

Radicals, on the other hand, see oppression as coming from the ruling class.

Besides, it's an upside down way to look at racism... is it a privilege to be able to walk down the street and not be stopped by cops for no reason other than your skin color or that you are walking with your lover of the same sex? There is black oppression, LGBT oppression, and so on.

The idea that white people or straight people benefit from oppression of others is just crazy because what does it mean to be a gay white woman - does this mean that you benefit 33%?

This kind of thinking is liberal and comes from the same logic as when people say: "oh there's inequality and we need to recognize that and maybe we should all try and do with less and be less materialistic". That's not radicalism, it's confused moralizing liberalism.

If any analysis is liberal, it would be the post-racial, post-sexist, etc. one presented here that paints all oppression as equal. Even more bizarre is taking any analysis and trying to lampoon it by breaking it down into percentages. Let me be clear (although I thought I had been previously). The racial analysis does not trump any other notion that communists have about class, sex, or any of the numerous imaginary barriers that capitalism attempts to divide us by. Anyone who thinks including this point is rejecting other forms of oppression or placing them as "more important" is misunderstanding the intent.

Interesting how much of a nerve this has struck.

Pogue

19th August 2009, 12:14

If any analysis is liberal, it would be the post-racial, post-sexist, etc. one presented here that paints all oppression as equal. Even more bizarre is taking any analysis and trying to lampoon it by breaking it down into percentages. Let me be clear (although I thought I had been previously). The racial analysis does not trump any other notion that communists have about class, sex, or any of the numerous imaginary barriers that capitalism attempts to divide us by. Anyone who thinks including this point is rejecting other forms of oppression or placing them as "more important" is misunderstanding the intent.

Interesting how much of a nerve this has struck.

Well obviously when you start accusing people of certain things or telling them w hat their everyday reality is over the internet you have to expect debate.

Led Zeppelin

19th August 2009, 12:16

There was a set of video clips posted on here the other day that, I think, addressed the issue of white privilege very well. If you can find the time, you should check them out (the guy's name was Tim...something: Glass or Stein or some other one-syllable Jewish-sounding name).

His name is Tim Wise, and here's the thread: Tim Wise, Reflections on Race and White Privilege (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tim-wise-reflections-t115411/index.html) :)

I don't really agree with everything he says there though. I think he is spot on regarding his criticism of the majority of the Marxist left in the US (and the same is the case in other advanced capitalist nations), but he objectivises those criticisms to Marxism as a whole, which I think misses the many important Marxist tendencies and movements that were not susceptible to this common problem stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of race relations and issues.

However, given the context, I think "bending the stick" is the right approach to take, so I applaud Wise for taking it.

Interesting how much of a nerve this has struck.

Yes, very interesting indeed, but not really surprising. At least not to me.

Pogue

19th August 2009, 12:20

You were asking how you had an advantage and I answered..

Well of course whit prvilige is a shit term its an americanized leftist-ghetto term , its going to be shit isnt it. I cant think of a realistic term at the moment.

No but where you live people tend to think of people seen to look foreign differently. If your mate comes down here chances are people are going to be scared of him. Because people in kent especially kids who dont work and whose parents keep them in there town are very unlikely to meet many black people and henceforth identify them by what they see on the tele.

No I never intended to lecture you I answered your questions which you had obviously put in place to start a debate. I had the impression it was more along the lines of everyone state there opinion and have a verbal punch up rather that the patronize pogue session.

This is ridiculous. People would be scared of my black or asian friends in Kent? Kent borders London for christs sake, its in the 21st century too. To claim people would be scared of my black and asian mates is ridiculous. I went to Kent with alot of my black and asian mates and it was fine, its just outside London anyway.

khad

19th August 2009, 12:25

This is ridiculous. People would be scared of my black or asian friends in Kent? Kent borders London for christs sake, its in the 21st century too. To claim people would be scared of my black and asian mates is ridiculous. I went to Kent with alot of my black and asian mates and it was fine, its just outside London anyway.
It is practically instinctual for some white folks to flinch visibly when they pass a group of black youths on the street. And don't even get started on the whole Asian and terrorist profiling crap. This is even true for major urban centers.

eyedrop

19th August 2009, 14:40

It is practically instinctual for some white folks to flinch visibly when they pass a group of black youths on the street. And don't even get started on the whole Asian and terrorist profiling crap. This is even true for major urban centers.I'll easily admit to having those instincts, but it's more related to folks wearing gangstha clothes as there were a decent amount of "white" folks (and a majority of "immigrants" weren't gang members) in the gangs terrorizing my junior high school (From age 12-15 right?). It was not uncommon for a car full of 18-25 year olds too unload at the school (or just outside school territory where smokers and such where) beat the shit out of someone who had messed with the wrong people and leave again. Those instincts where instilled in me by 3 schoolyears living in constant fear of gangmembers.

I've been beaten up myself, and plenty of my friends have been hospitalized, (adults) in cases of blind violence where 4-5 guys find a lone victim and beats the shit out of him.

Being a victim of blind group violence does something to your psyche, and I don't think it's that uncommon to flinch whenever a victim sees any situation that reminds them of it. I still flinch whenever I see a group of people (especially people following the hip-hop culture) when walking around alone at night.

Such instincts takes some time to work trough, but the reasons for such behaviour are clearly economical conditions as one builds and economical gettho in town. And it's obviously not racial as in other parts of the country it's other parts of youth-culture that are themainly violent part of society. For example "rånere" in more rural parts, a car-loving, mostly "white" poor group, in other parts it's the bike gangs which controls the streets.

Pogue

19th August 2009, 14:44

It is practically instinctual for some white folks to flinch visibly when they pass a group of black youths on the street. And don't even get started on the whole Asian and terrorist profiling crap. This is even true for major urban centers.

Its not about the skin colour though, its about behaviour. most of the gangs in my area are white, the dodgy kids, in some areas there will be gangs of black youth. Down here we tell the potential murderers apart from how they act, how they approach you, what they do, etc, not by their skin colour. Its called being streetwise. I think joe is exagerating what Kent is like.

Pirate turtle the 11th

19th August 2009, 15:09

This is ridiculous. People would be scared of my black or asian friends in Kent? Kent borders London for christs sake, its in the 21st century too. To claim people would be scared of my black and asian mates is ridiculous. I went to Kent with alot of my black and asian mates and it was fine, its just outside London anyway.

Clearly you do not speak to that many kentish people. I know people there who have never been to london.

Pogue

19th August 2009, 15:17

Clearly you do not speak to that many kentish people. I know people there who have never been to london.

Kents a whole county mate. I don't think you can say its a county of people who are scared of black people. I think thats exageration to the extreme.

Jimmie Higgins

19th August 2009, 21:51

If any analysis is liberal, it would be the post-racial, post-sexist, etc. one presented here that paints all oppression as equal.Nice strawman. Where did I paint all oppression as equal? I said that oppression comes from the same place, not that society is post-racial or that racism doesn't matter or that one oppression was experienced just like another. Post-racial ideas aren't even liberal anyway - it's a conservative idea.

Even more bizarre is taking any analysis and trying to lampoon it by breaking it down into percentages.If it's that easy to lampoon, maybe it's because it's a rubbish idea! Yes, ID politics are bizarre: if oppression does not come from the ruling class but comes from various different and overlapping groups in society, then a white lesbian benefits from the racial oppression of her black lesbian sister and that is just an insane way to look at oppression in society.

Let me be clear (although I thought I had been previously). The racial analysis does not trump any other notion that communists have about class, sex, or any of the numerous imaginary barriers that capitalism attempts to divide us by. Anyone who thinks including this point is rejecting other forms of oppression or placing them as "more important" is misunderstanding the intent.If this was directed at my post, you are completely jumping to conclusions about what I am argueing. I am not saying one is more important than another - just that opressed croups and the working class do not BENIFIT from racism or other forms of opression; LGBT whites do not benifit from racism and black people do not benifit from Islamophobia.

The opression of groups in capitalism STRENGTHENS THE RULING CLASS and is therefore a detriment to all oppressed groups. If white people do not fight for equal treatment of their black/gay brothers and sisters, then the divisions will be used to keep the entire working class down.

Do native workers have NATVIE-PRIVILAGE? Native-workers get more rights and better treatment than immigrants right? But most radicals would rightly point out that laws and restrictions on immigrants also hurt the native-workers.

Whiteness theory and Identity Politics view racism upside-down and pit oppressed groups in the working class against eahother - each group receiving some benefits from the oppression of other groups. Again, this is a liberal theory, I'm not saying this to name-call people, it's where ID politics come from, it is not a radical theory.

Nice job though - you mange to avoid addressing any of the points I raised while also completely misrepresenting my argument:rolleyes:.

Again, is it a PRIVILEGE to buy a house and not be offered a decent mortgage based on perceptions about you race? Or is it OPPRESSION of black people or other groups?

Pirate turtle the 11th

19th August 2009, 22:06

Kents a whole county mate. I don't think you can say its a county of people who are scared of black people. I think thats exageration to the extreme.

No but your far more likely to get paranoid nutters.

brigadista

19th August 2009, 22:08

trust me - Kent is like the UK in the 70s-

Jimmie Higgins

19th August 2009, 22:28

Whiteness theory argues that all white people benefit from racism and all males benefit from sexism and so on and this ties "privileged groups" to the system - buying them off with psychological bonuses of being part of the ruling group.

For those who support the "privilege" theory of oppression, how do you suggest oppression be combated? How do we get rid of white/mate/heterosexual privilege if that it the problem?

I say that white people do not materially benefit from racism and men do not benefit from sexism because these oppressions help strengthen the ruling class and allow it to pit groups of workers against eachother. So, to me, the goal of fighting opression is not focusing on and getting rid of the "privilages", but focusing on the INEQUALITIES and gettig rid of them so that Arabs are no longer harrassed by authorities and Blacks are given worse loan rates by banks or Women are not paid less than their male counterparts. In this way we can begin to unify the working class and creates the preconditions for a real struggle against capitalism.

Plagueround

20th August 2009, 04:23

MarxSchmarx

20th August 2009, 05:40

Do you think this is the same the world over?
Absolutely. I have travelled quite a bit, and believe me, whites do enjoy very real advantages everywhere I have been.

Do you think this transcends class boundaries? For example how do you deal with rich/bourgeois black people, Obama, black cops, etc.

Yes. I think within those circles, for instance within police departments, white privilege enjoyed by white cops but not black cops is very real.

How do you think we can fight against white privilige?
By building a classless society.

In this fight, what role can white people themselves play, if any? It is rather straightforward. First, white people need to recognize their white privilege. Second, they should strive, wherever possible, to adopt the perspective of racial minorities and see the world from as "non-white" a perspective as they can. Third, they should learn about the struggles of other white people who fought for racial equality. Finally, and most importantly, they should encourage other whites to abandon race-based divisions within the working class. And white people, like everyone else, should organize for the class struggle.

manic expression

20th August 2009, 06:37

You seem to be under the impression that what you've described is somehow a different analysis. It is not.

Perhaps you could clarify this. From what I've seen, the use of the term "white privilege" often puts people on the defensive and does the opposite of bringing people together in common cause. This thread, and your own point about touched nerves, basically proves this yet again. Pinpointing the causes and effects of racism does not have to include pointing fingers at whites in general, and although it may not be intentional, calling all whites privileged is finger-pointing, at least in my eyes.

And on the origins of "white privilege", I was under the impression that the majority of theories on "white privilege" came from the radical-to-liberal academic left during the last few decades (if I'm mistaken here, let me know). McIntosh is a good example of this, as is the River Collective (I forget the exact name) that influenced her. In this context, the use of "white privilege" is decidedly counterrevolutionary and anti-worker, and if I'm being honest, I've heard it employed almost exclusively by either ideologically bankrupt "student activsts" (spare me) or budding Black professionals who want nothing more than greater access to the ranks of the capitalist class. Are people here using the term in this manner? No, they aren't, but the origin of the term was brought up. In addition, these uses are important because there are many implications of "white privilege" that are dragged into the conversation, implications that don't help any part of this discussion.

By the way, in case I haven't said it before, I appreciate a lot of the points brought up on this thread. Race and racism are things that I'll probably always be learning about, and the more we talk about this the better.

Jimmie Higgins

20th August 2009, 08:29

You seem to be under the impression that what you've described is somehow a different analysis. It is not.

No, you seemed to be under the impression that my argument was somehow "post-racial" when I was arguing nothing of the same. Also you have not answered my question about fighting "white privilege".

My argument is anti-racist just as "white privilege" theory is anti-racist and that is the similarity of the analysis.

I think it goes beyond a semantic disagreement however because "white privilege" theory believes that people from non oppressed groups are somehow bought-off by the privilege and gain materially from oppression.

As a Marxist I reject the idea that modern whites or men in the US benefit materially from the racism that has been used to justify cuts to social services ("welfare queen" racism) for everyone and build prisons and expand the power of police (the ruling class creates racist fear of black and latino sociopaths). Black, Latinos, Filipinos and other racially oppressed groups have obviously been the primary recipient of this oppression, but white workers have no benefit from an increasingly repressive state. In order for the ruling class to move forward, radicals need to take on racism and inequality within the class.

Do men benefit from sexism and women recieving lower wages? I think the working class would be much better off if the 1/2 of the workforce got paid equally for work and didn't also have to do the majority of child-work.

Zolken

20th August 2009, 09:51

This is a topic thats been brought up alot lately and theres been some disagreemnt and confusion on it. So I want to ask some questions.

To those who believe that white people are priviliged:

Do you think this is the same the world over?

Do you think this transcends class boundaries? For example how do you deal with rich/bourgeois black people, Obama, black cops, etc.

How do you think we can fight against white privilige?

In this fight, what role can white people themselves play, if any?

Whites are a privileged people? ... someone needs to wake you up there Rip Van Winkle.

Braun

Plagueround

21st August 2009, 06:08

Would it make people feel better if the term was instead "Black Disadvantage" or "Colored Disadvantage"?

eyedrop

21st August 2009, 10:38

Would it make people feel better if the term was instead "Black Disadvantage" or "Colored Disadvantage"?

Actually yes, although it is a proportional privilige/advantage for whites compared to minorities. Whites got a proportional advantage compared to minorities, but I believe white workers and minority workers would be better off without the seperation. Minorities are constantly used to attack established workers. Here Polish folks (the last years poles have almost become a race) are constantly repressed and got bad wages and working conditions in the construction industry, this can be achieved because the poles will be thrown out of the country, if they lose their job, and they are generally unorganised. They got bad job security, little welfare state support and generally can't object much, or else...

The effect of that on established construction workers is worsening their bargaining possibilities. Obviously the solution is to give the immigrants full citizenship, access to the welfare state and hopefully job security through unionizing, which would increase the bargaining possibilities of all the construction workers. Too top it off mainstream leftist parties are doing nothing about it and the mainstream unions (not that we got much else) aren't even giving a half-assed effort to attempt to unionize immigrant workers.

Pogue

21st August 2009, 11:09

Would it make people feel better if the term was instead "Black Disadvantage" or "Colored Disadvantage"?

I'd just call it what it is, the existence of racial predjudice against black people which isn't seen against white people.

Jimmie Higgins

21st August 2009, 16:06

Would it make people feel better if the term was instead "Black Disadvantage" or "Colored Disadvantage"?Yes. In fact it would be better just to call it black oppression or racism.

If the problem is privilege, this implies that you need to get rid of the privilege rather than get rid of the oppression and racism. The US right wants to say there is no such thing as racism any more (just individuals with prejudices - which could imply that blacks can be racist against whites and is utter malarkey) and so shying away from the term and focusing on "white privilege" weakens arguments against the right.

We should want everyone to have the same "privilege" of not being racially profiled or ripped off for home loans or being able to unionize.

counterblast

22nd August 2009, 01:39

It never ceases to amaze me that some white folks will argue for hours on end over semantics, but won't do a thing towards addressing the ways people of color are disproportionately oppressed. Call it white privilege or colored disadvantage or whatever the fuck you want to; its real and it exists, and it needs to be addressed (now, not in 100 years when all the workers of the world organize).

This discussion should cease focus on what name to place on white privilege, and focus on creating ways to resist and ultimately end it.

And to respond to the person who responded to my original post;
I could care less about token leaders of color in white European communist movements. All the people of color of the world joining (even managing) those movements can't erase the white academia that has become canonized by them. Until it quits being taboo in communist circles to openly critique the absolute authority of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or the myriad of other Gods of the Marxist religion; people of color will be continue to be outsiders.

Plagueround

22nd August 2009, 01:53

Counterblast pretty much summed up where I was going with that and saved me quite a bit of typing. ;)

Also, this study (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/508) refutes the idea that using the words white privilege make people less aware of racism. If you can provide counter-evidence, I'd be more than happy to give it consideration.

manic expression

22nd August 2009, 02:25

It never ceases to amaze me that some white folks will argue for hours on end over semantics, but won't do a thing towards addressing the ways people of color are disproportionately oppressed. Call it white privilege or colored disadvantage or whatever the fuck you want to; its real and it exists, and it needs to be addressed (now, not in 100 years when all the workers of the world organize).

It's not semantics if the rhetoric divides people and stops a more constructive conversation. Things which arguably affect the unity of the socialist movement are not semantics and never will be.

And I call it racism, I call it oppression, I call it capitalism. That's what it is.

And to respond to the person who responded to my original post;
I could care less about token leaders of color in white European communist movements. All the people of color of the world joining (even managing) those movements can't erase the white academia that has become canonized by them. Until it quits being taboo in communist circles to openly critique the absolute authority of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or the myriad of other Gods of the Marxist religion; people of color will be continue to be outsiders.I asked you for specifics, not vague charges of "white academia" and the "Gods of the Marxist religion" (which would include Che, Castro and Mao, but don't let that stop you).

Also, this study (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/508) refutes the idea that using the words white privilege make people less aware of racism. If you can provide counter-evidence, I'd be more than happy to give it consideration.

That was never my contention. My contention was that it puts people on the defensive and ascribes to individuals what is a deep societal problem. You can be "more aware" of racism while feeling insulted.

Jimmie Higgins

22nd August 2009, 02:44

It never ceases to amaze me that some white folks will argue for hours on end over semantics, but won't do a thing towards addressing the ways people of color are disproportionately oppressed.First, I've argued here that this goes beyond a semantic argument

Second, I live blocks from where police murdered a young black father named Oscar Grant, most of my neighbors are immigrants just like my maternal Irish and Mexican grandparents, so if you think I consider racism as some kind of abstract concept that doesn't impact me and everyone around me, you are fucking crazy and it's no use talking to you.

Call it white privilege or colored disadvantage or whatever the fuck you want to; its real and it exists, and it needs to be addressed (now, not in 100 years when all the workers of the world organize).Where did I argue anything like that? My argument is that whiteness theory is inadequate to fight racism! Apparently, your argument is weak so you have to build your case through straw men and race-baiting people who disagree.

This discussion should cease focus on what name to place on white privilege, and focus on creating ways to resist and ultimately end it.Yes, that's why I think it is important to debate these issues and figure out the best way to fight racism. Identity politics and whiteness theory, in my opinion, are poor ways to fight racism because it claims that all white people (regardless of class or sexual orientation or religion) benefit from racism and are bought-off by it. My argument is that racism is used to oppress one group in order for the ruling class to divide the population and have power over the whole population.

Racism and Islamophobia were used to sell the wars in Iraq - do white workers ultimately benefit from this?

I have already asked what supporters of whiteness theory propose to do about racism and so far I am still waiting for an answer to how to combat "privilege".

Also, this study (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/508) refutes the idea that using the words white privilege make people less aware of racism.I could call racism "Fraggle Rock Stew" and it would do little to make most people in the US less aware of the realities of racism

Among members of privileged groups, social inequality is often thought of in terms of the disadvantages associated with outgroup membership. Yet inequality also can be validly framed in terms of ingroup privilege. These different framings have important psychological and social implications. In Experiment 1 (N = 110), White American participants assessed 24 statements about racial inequality framed as either White privileges or Black disadvantages. In Experiment 2 (N = 122), White participants generated examples of White privileges or Black disadvantages. In both experiments, a White privilege framing resulted in greater collective guilt and lower racism compared to a Black disadvantage framing. Collective guilt mediated the manipulation’s effect on racism. In addition, in Experiment 2, a White privilege framing decreased White racial identification compared to a Black disadvantage framing. These findings suggest that representing inequality in terms of outgroup disadvantage allows privileged group members to avoid the negative psychological implications of inequality and supports prejudicial attitudes.Again so do you think racism comes from various groups of non oppressed groups rather than from the ruling class? This is what identity politics argues and it is not a radical argument, it is a liberal argument.

Racism doesn't come from individuals it comes from systems of control set up by the ruling class - if we want to effectively be able to take on the ruling class we need to get rid of racism/sexism/homophobia and so on so we can build real solidarity. However, if we want to be able to get rid of these things we also have to be clear about their source in society and therefore how to take it on.

If it is a matter of white people befitting from racism, there is no hope but to appeal to white people to change their ideas and hope that the social structures follow - this is like hoping CEOs won't be so greedy; it's not a materialist approach.

Plagueround

22nd August 2009, 03:05

I could call racism "Fraggle Rock Stew" and it would do little to make most people in the US less aware of the realities of racism

Yeah. The difference is the words "fraggle rock stew" have nothing to do with racism.

Again so do you think racism comes from various groups of non oppressed groups rather than from the ruling class?

No. It most definitely comes from the ruling class. I've never said otherwise. Most of what you've been arguing against are things that people in this thread have not said. You're also conflating white privilege and racism. While the two are related, they are not one in the same.

This is what identity politics argues and it is not a radical argument, it is a liberal argument.

This is also not what anyone here is arguing.

Racism doesn't come from individuals it comes from systems of control set up by the ruling class - if we want to effectively be able to take on the ruling class we need to get rid of racism/sexism/homophobia and so on so we can build real solidarity. However, if we want to be able to get rid of these things we also have to be clear about their source in society and therefore how to take it on.

Absolutely. This includes recognizing the privileges that racist policies and groups have created and conferred on others who may not otherwise have anything in common with them. It would also be beneficial to point out how these privileges are, in actuality, a hindrance.

If it is a matter of white people befitting from racism, there is no hope but to appeal to white people to change their ideas and hope that the social structures follow - this is like hoping CEOs won't be so greedy; it's not a materialist approach.

You seem to be thinking we're arguing white privilege as a consciously upheld thing that all whites are actively perpetuating. We are not, nor are we advocating a ridiculous abandonment of attacking racism at its core in favor of trying to bring whites down and out of "privilege". That is a gross caricature of what is actually being discussed.

Jimmie Higgins

22nd August 2009, 03:38

Thank you Plaguround, your post definitely helps clarify this discussion.

And you are correct that I was arguing against what I understand to be the source and underlying assumptions of whiteness theory, not necessarily things you or other people explicitly argued.

Absolutely. This includes recognizing the privileges that racist policies and groups have created and conferred on others who may not otherwise have anything in common with them. It would also be beneficial to point out how these privileges are, in actuality, a hindrance.

I think this is the main sticking point for me because I don't think people benefit from any oppression even when it is directed at another group. In the US north, black organizations fought hard against racism in cities and even in the unions - the result is a somewhat more unified labor force (at least the bosses can't explicitly play black and white against eachother) and a more unified union movement. In the south, even though there is much more racism and black people are not hired for management position at the same rate as whites, the bosses have played workers off eachother and prevented unionization so even the "privileged" white workers make less than black or white workers in the north.

Immigration is another example, here one group is explicitly "priviliaged" over another group - undocumented immigrants have no rights and are threatened by ICE is they try to defend their rights - but do natives in these industries make more than workers in similar jobs where unions have forced bosses not to take immigration status into consideration? No, they make less because they are pit in a race to the bottom against their undocumented brothers (even if they make a little more than their immigrant co-workers).

You seem to be thinking we're arguing white privilege as a consciously upheld thing that all whites are actively perpetuating. We are not, nor are we advocating a ridiculous abandonment of attacking racism at its core in favor of trying to bring whites down and out of "privilege". That is a gross caricature of what is actually being discussed.Fair enough. It still seems that most of "whiteness theory" and especially identity politics take an idealist approach to combating racism - in other words, racism comes from white people having racist ideas, so the answer to racism is getting people to change their minds and recognize privilege.

Working class people have so few privileges, the goal should be to make everyone as "privileged". This is why I want us to focus on racism and oppression and building solidarity against the real privileged in capitalist society. People don't even want to use or acknowledge the word racism these days and we need to point out that racism is the disgusting foundation of our rulers and is the primary tool used by the ruling class to keep all of us down and powerless.

Hiero

22nd August 2009, 03:42

I could care less about token leaders of color in white European communist movements. All the people of color of the world joining (even managing) those movements can't erase the white academia that has become canonized by them. Until it quits being taboo in communist circles to openly critique the absolute authority of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or the myriad of other Gods of the Marxist religion; people of color will be continue to be outsiders.

Interesting that you left Mao out.

The actually reality in this world is the Communist movement has been a non-white thing for a long time.

You believe the very illusion you think you are fighting against.

Zolken

22nd August 2009, 03:59

Interesting that you left Mao out.

The actually reality in this world is the Communist movement has been a non-white thing for a long time.

You believe the very illusion you think you are fighting against.

Communism has been internationalist since its conception. Marx based his theory upon class struggle and did not set about to define the new creed in terms of racial identity. One should never confuse Communism for National Socialism.

Mujer Libre

22nd August 2009, 04:28

This thread was really hard for me to read, as a person of colour without becoming quite emotional and frustrated by the narrowmindedness of several people in this thread.

It's hard to explain the general sense of white privilege that we feel walking around in the street (I live in Australia)- but there's something in the way you get treated at shops, the way white people occupy space (say on train seats) compared to the way people of colour do, the way people first react to you when they see you, the sense of entitlement you see in white teenagers.

It's not the blatant hostility that you'd normally associate with "racism" or "oppression" but it's there, it's there telling us that we don't belong here. That white people are entitled to things that we are not. And it's with you ALL the fucking time.

Hiero

22nd August 2009, 05:27

Communism has been internationalist since its conception. Marx based his theory upon class struggle and did not set about to define the new creed in terms of racial identity. One should never confuse Communism for National Socialism.

Braun

I would agree in some instance with CounterBlast, that Marxism has been absorbed into a primarily white male working class identity. The term worker-chauvinist has been on this forum. This is in the first world, like for instance parties in the UK thinking they were the centre of revolution, especially trotyskist parties, Ted Grant left South Africa for the UK because he thought revolution would occur there first, nevermind the struggle against aparthiad.

But on the other side of the globe Marxism-Leninism and Maoism have been a leading force in the 3rd world, which is primarily non-white. And from this there has developed some great theory and practice which is centred around national and ethnic issues. People like Fanon, Kwame Nkrumah or even Huey P in the colonised areas within the first world.

I don't agree with CounterBlast approach, I am at the point where I want to study about class contradiction on a global scale, and that results in not giving a fuck about what some stupid Trotkyist or stale Stalinist in the centre of imperialism has to say about the proleteriat, which is as much a identity thing as it is in post-modernism.

The real goal is bring forward these ideas from the 3rd world which have been completly ignored, such as it being ok to read Althusser's dialectics but not Mao's, so we need to start reading Mao, Amin, Fanon, Nkrumah and talking about real class conflict on the global scaled in the acadamic and in the revolutioanry parties.

This thread was really hard for me to read, as a person of colour without becoming quite emotional and frustrated by the narrowmindedness of several people in this thread.

It's hard to explain the general sense of white privilege that we feel walking around in the street (I live in Australia)- but there's something in the way you get treated at shops, the way white people occupy space (say on train seats) compared to the way people of colour do, the way people first react to you when they see you, the sense of entitlement you see in white teenagers.

It's not the blatant hostility that you'd normally associate with "racism" or "oppression" but it's there, it's there telling us that we don't belong here. That white people are entitled to things that we are not. And it's with you ALL the fucking time.

Well this is the liberal ideaology that infects our society. Reading everything from the neutaral level. Take multiculturalism is all about structural position of ethnic minorities around a centre white population, choosing what to accept from the ethnic minority and immigrant.

But I too am getting annoyed at this style of threads. Not from the same perspective as you, rather this ingorant dull empiricism "I am white and I don't see any white privelege in my day to day activities" Well that is excactly the point, you are white and totally absorbed in it.

Mujer Libre

22nd August 2009, 05:32

Well this is the liberal ideaology that infects our society. Reading everything from the neutaral level. Take multiculturalism is all about structural position of ethnic minorities around a centre white population, choosing what to accept from the ethnic minority and immigrant. __________________
Yes. The word "tolerance" sums it up really.

And while blatant racism is acceptable, the underlying whiteness of societal structures hasn't been challenged at all- not even by some leftists apparently.

Itis

22nd August 2009, 08:04

It's hard to explain the general sense of white privilege that we feel walking around in the street (I live in Australia)- but there's something in the way you get treated at shops, the way white people occupy space (say on train seats) compared to the way people of colour do, the way people first react to you when they see you, the sense of entitlement you see in white teenagers.

Can you please de-abstract this a notch please? I'm from Melbourne and probably spend 8 to 10 hours on trains per week, on different lines and whatnot, I can't say i've seen any difference in the way that people of colour occupy space in comparison to whites.

Can you explain "the sense of entitlement you see in white teenagers" in more concrete terms? If not, why do you feel justified in making such grandiose statements? I'm sure a lot of the reason you are treated differently in shops and the like could have a lot to with whites being so terrified of being called racist that they feel they have to be careful in what they say to you. I'm not saying that that isn't racist, but it is a much less extreme racism.

Furthermore obviously the way you are treated as a person of colour is dependant on what sort of person of colour you are - not all people of colour are treated the same at all. I'm not saying that you were saying that, but it is noteworthy I think.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

22nd August 2009, 08:05

22nd August 2009, 08:17

I believe that white privilege exists but only through the phoney concept of "whiteness." Whiteness is an idealistic concept, its only basis is as an imposed tool of division from the ruling class. Whiteness is also relative and arbitrary; in the US I've been called a "racial mongrel" by a white supremacist while in Mexico I have had a stranger say "fucking gringo, why are you here?" for just walking down the street. Whiteness was imposed on everyone by the colonial mentality of the ruling class. We need to reject the "who's more white" competitions that the capitalist class uses to divide us.

The fact that race is a social construct does not mean that the consequences faced by people who don't fit into society's conception of "whiteness" don't face very real and pervasive consequences as a result; they do. And I don't see how ignoring or playing down this fact is productive in any way.

Mujer Libre

22nd August 2009, 08:32

I'm sure a lot of the reason you are treated differently in shops and the like could have a lot to with whites being so terrified of being called racist that they feel they have to be careful in what they say to you.
Yes. It's political correctness gone mad.

To me this just invalidates everything else you just said, and is why I didn;t want to post in this thread to start with.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

22nd August 2009, 08:41

The fact that race is a social construct does not mean that the consequences faced by people who don't fit into society's conception of "whiteness" don't face very real and pervasive consequences as a result; they do. And I don't see how ignoring or playing down this fact is productive in any way.

I'm not trying to downplay white privilege, I never said non-whites don't face real consequences from racism. I'm saying, it's not productive to downplay or ignore the fact that racism is a direct consequence of capitalist colonial development. That just leads to things like people thinking Obama or any other capitalist is capable of ushering in an era of "racial equality."

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 11:26

It never ceases to amaze me that some white folks will argue for hours on end over semantics, but won't do a thing towards addressing the ways people of color are disproportionately oppressed.

Again, I am not sure why anyone is surprised by this at all. If you've spent a day on Revleft you know the kind of reactionary filth that's on here; Zionism, sexism, racism, in varying degrees all espoused by members from the rank of non-CC to Admin.

In this particular case the "personal experience" card is played a lot by both sides. We have people who have suffered (and do so on a virtually daily basis) under the yoke of white-privilege based societies, and people who haven't. The people who haven't have not experienced it due to the virtue of their whiteness. The people who have have experienced it due to the virtue of their non-whiteness.

This cancels out the "personal experience" line of argument, though of course if you want to stick with it it is clear that the word of the side that suffers through his or her experience is more valid than the side who doesn't suffer through his or her experience.

What is left are facts. One fact is that 95% of CEO's and management of corporations and companies in white-dominated societies are made up of white men. The same percentage permeates society as a whole - all its institutions of power - something which should not surprise Marxists given our understanding of the interrelationship between economics and society at large.

Another fact is that white-dominated societies are currently the main imperialist powers in the world. And this power permeates societies throughout the world.

I wrote about this more in-depth in the other thread, which is why I didn't feel inclined to participate in this one (also due to the feeling of disgust mentioned by Mujer Libre and Plagueround).

I'll repeat what I said there:

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.

manic expression

22nd August 2009, 12:35

Yes. The word "tolerance" sums it up really.

And while blatant racism is acceptable, the underlying whiteness of societal structures hasn't been challenged at all- not even by some leftists apparently.

I appreciate your comments on your experiences, but this is quite another thing. If non-white capitalists the world over have adopted and embraced many of those same structures, how are we to ascribe an "underlying whiteness" to them? It's not about their "whiteness", it's about oppressing certain groups more because they can get away with it and help their cause at the same time.

Is capitalism really "white"? That's the question people have to ask themselves.

I wrote about this more in-depth in the other thread, which is why I didn't feel inclined to participate in this one (also due to the feeling of disgust mentioned by Mujer Libre and Plagueround).

Did you miss the posts in which I (and others) expressed offense at the implication that all whites are implicit in racism? I suspect that perhaps you're privileging some posters' disgust over others'.

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 13:10

Did you miss the posts in which I ....

Yes, I probably did, because I don't read your posts; I consider them to be utter trash. Also, if I wanted to hear about the white man's burden I'd go outside and talk to some random white male; I don't need to read your posts on Revleft to know about it.

expressed offense at the implication that all whites are implicit in racism?

This is an irrelevant straw-man. Yes, there are whites who aren't racist, and there are men who aren't sexist. That doesn't change the fact that due to the institutions of power and private property being predominately owned by white men in white-dominated societies these societies are inherently sexist and racist.

You can choose to ignore this and point to the exceptions to the rule (which always exist, one of the more extreme examples being Nazis who weren't anti-semitic), or you can call things by what they are and fight it more efficiently by doing so.

eyedrop

22nd August 2009, 13:20

I'd like to see a response to this point by Gravedigger.

I think this is the main sticking point for me because I don't think people benefit from any oppression even when it is directed at another group. In the US north, black organizations fought hard against racism in cities and even in the unions - the result is a somewhat more unified labor force (at least the bosses can't explicitly play black and white against eachother) and a more unified union movement. In the south, even though there is much more racism and black people are not hired for management position at the same rate as whites, the bosses have played workers off eachother and prevented unionization so even the "privileged" white workers make less than black or white workers in the north.

Immigration is another example, here one group is explicitly "priviliaged" over another group - undocumented immigrants have no rights and are threatened by ICE is they try to defend their rights - but do natives in these industries make more than workers in similar jobs where unions have forced bosses not to take immigration status into consideration? No, they make less because they are pit in a race to the bottom against their undocumented brothers (even if they make a little more than their immigrant co-workers).
If it is true that "white" workers gain by the institutional racism, wouldn't they have a material self interest in keeping it? I'm not disputing that there is instituional racism (I've witnessed to many slips from folks in charge of hiring), or that "coloured" people generally get a different reaction from folks. But white workers don't gain by it.

I think the main reason why anti-immigrant conservative parties (in Europe atleast, here they are the 2nd largest party) are have increased their the working class support. Established workers see an immigrant workforce, with lesser bargaining power, who they have to compete with and the anti-immigrant conservative parties promises to remove it. We on the left should fight for increasing the immigrants (or other disadvantaged workers) bargaining power up to the level of the established workers.

Mujer Libre

22nd August 2009, 13:22

If non-white capitalists the world over have adopted and embraced many of those same structures, how are we to ascribe an "underlying whiteness" to them? It's not about their "whiteness", it's about oppressing certain groups more because they can get away with it and help their cause at the same time.

Is capitalism really "white"? That's the question people have to ask themselves.
A few points here.

There are other power structures than simple capitalism. Racial, gender-based, based on sexuality. Of course they all interact with capitalism- which in many ways is an overarching power structure, but NOT the only one. That point of view is reductionist in the extreme, and leads to the neglect of a wide range of oppression.

And in the sense that capitalism was born out of Western colonialism and imperialism- you could argue that- at least in an etymological sense, it IS white. Not that that is a particularly productive thing to say,but it wasn't a particularly productive question to ask, since, as I outlined above, discrimination and oppression is a multifactorial thing.

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 13:41

If it is true that "white" workers gain by the institutional racism, wouldn't they have a material self interest in keeping it?

By the same logic didn't (and don't) men have a material self-interest in keeping patriarchy alive? However can we fight patriarchy and racism if it is in the immediate and limited material self-interest of men and whites to not do so?

Luckily this is not really true. Material self-interest is a powerful motivator, which is why under capitalism patriarchy and racism will always exist, and why in a communist system in which the means of production are collectively owned by society, equally by each member of it, this aspect is removed in relation to gender and race, and with it any form of privilege connected to these relations, however relative it may be. That is why Marxists believe only communism can rid society of these ills.

As for why men and white people would be interested in this social revolution to begin with; because capitalism becomes a brake and fetter on the further development of the productive forces, and it is in the ultimate and general material self-interest of the proletariat (of all races and genders) to overthrow it.

I'm not disputing that there is instituional racism (I've witnessed to many slips from folks in charge of hiring), or that "coloured" people generally get a different reaction from folks. But white workers don't gain by it.

I love the doublethink here.

I'm not disputing that there is institutional racism because I've witnessed colored people getting a different reaction from folks and being biased against in job applications, but white workers don't gain anything by not being colored and not having to suffer the same fate because of it.

black magick hustla

22nd August 2009, 13:54

A few points here.

And in the sense that capitalism was born out of Western colonialism and imperialism- you could argue that- at least in an etymological sense, it IS white. Not that that is a particularly productive thing to say,but it wasn't a particularly productive question to ask, since, as I outlined above, discrimination and oppression is a multifactorial thing.

obviously because white folks took the upper hand historically, they gained more places in the ruling class and as such, "white" cultural elements get the upperhand in the superstructure, manifesting itself in racist institutions etc.

the question arises if the whole discourse based on "racial power structures" than exist independent of capitalism has any political worth. what does it mean to struggle against "whiteness" - do we offer our own cultural platform that is not-white? or we are just arguing at the structural level - i.e. there are more white CEOs, or white politicians. Obviously the whole being against "cultural whiteness" is a completely political bankrupt and its a task of radical liberals, not communists. I do not find anything constructive in "multiethnic" culture, whatever is that supposed to mean, when all these cultures were born from class society and are integrated to the ruling classes of their respective "ethnicities" i.e. burkas, cinco de mayo, etc. I don´t find anything politically meaningful about glorifying chicano literature, as if the borders where I was born in somehow makes this "literature mine"..

The structural aspect is a bit more interesting. However, how one fights the structural aspects of racism? More importantly, do we really care if there are more mexican CEOs, more black CEOs, etc - what meaningful changes besides a sense of national pride will this bring? Now well, lets suppose then that we dont really care if there are more mexican bosses, but we care the disadvantages of the mexican working class over the white working class in the US. How do we change this, do we form mexican only organizations and parade only as mexicans? Do we beat up white people in the streets? Do we form latino fraternies at college (thereis this frat that is always trying to drag me in) while we jack each other off about our latino pride? Obviously all of this sounds absurd.

So what politically meaningful and useful things would a worldview like that bring?

eyedrop

22nd August 2009, 13:54

I love the doublethink here.

I'm not disputing that there is institutional racism because I've witnessed colored people getting a different reaction from folks and being biased against in job applications, but white workers don't gain anything by not being colored and not having to suffer the same fate because of it. Does the white workers increase, or decrease, their bargaining power by the existance of a more disadvantaged and desperate segment of the working class, which instituional racism creates?

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 14:20

The structural aspect is a bit more interesting. However, how one fights the structural aspects of racism? More importantly, do we really care if there are more mexican CEOs, more black CEOs, etc - what meaningful changes besides a sense of national pride will this bring?

No one has suggested this, most likely because it's Utopian to think it's even possible, regardless of the fact that it doesn't change anything.

Now well, lets suppose then that we dont really care if there are more mexican bosses, but we care the disadvantages of the mexican working class over the white working class in the US. How do we change this, do we form mexican only organizations and parade only as mexicans? Do we beat up white people in the streets? Do we form latino fraternies at college (thereis this frat that is always trying to drag me in) while we jack each other off about our latino pride? Obviously all of this sounds absurd.

So what politically meaningful and useful things would a worldview like that bring?

I don't understand how accepting white privilege as a reality equates to "beating up white people in the street" or "forming non-white organizations" being the solution to it? Which person ever suggested such a thing in this thread or even historically in the Marxist movement?

No one has.

The solution is pretty straightforward; unite those who are divided by the power-structure along race, sexuality and gender lines. It is in the interest of the ruling class to divide the working-class, it is the interest of the working-class to be united. In order to go about this task most efficiently it is important to recognize and appreciate the role this divisiveness plays among the various sections of the working-class. We must oppose sexism, racism and homophobia consistently, in a way that conforms to material reality. That is of course if you want to be taken seriously politically.

If you want to be taken for a political hack, you'll claim that men aren't privileged in current day capitalist society, or you'll claim that white people aren't privileged in the United States of today. Then I wish you luck trying to unite the colored workers with white workers. It's actually quite disgusting in a way isn't it. Imagine someone telling you; "Hey, I know you're Mexican and all and that there's a lot of racism against Mexicans, and whites don't have to suffer the same thing, but that's mostly irrelevant because being a worker is the most important thing so let's focus on that!".

I don't think any organization which operates in such a manner is worthy of the name "communist" or "revolutionary".

Does the white workers increase, or decrease, their bargaining power by the existance of a more disadvantaged and desperate segment of the working class, which instituional racism creates?

I don't understand why you chose to formulate your question in this manner, or what the point of the question is.

You said yourself that colored people are biased against in certain ways. This means that by not being colored, you won't be biased against in those ways. This is pretty self-explanatory.

black magick hustla

22nd August 2009, 14:29

No one has suggested this, most likely because it's Utopian to think it's even possible, regardless of the fact that it doesn't change anything.

I don't understand how accepting white privilege as a reality equates to "beating up white people in the street" or "forming non-white organizations" being the solution to it? Which person ever suggested such a thing in this thread or even historically in the Marxist movement?

Notice that I argued against view that "racist power structures" are "independent of capitalism". Racism and sexism are material realities - I was merely arguing what is the political significance of these power structures being independent of capitalism - which they are not. women are opressed because under the division of labor they got the shaft /i.e. males had the financial recources in marriage while women did menial labor)-

eyedrop

22nd August 2009, 14:39

I don't understand why you chose to formulate your question in this manner, or what the point of the question is.

You said yourself that colored people are biased against in certain ways. This means that by not being colored, you won't be biased against in those ways. This is pretty self-explanatory.
Yes white workers are comperatively better off, or priviligied if you'd like, but they would be even better off if they didn't have to compete with disadvantaged and more desperate workers. So it is in the direct material self interest for a white worker to fight against racism.

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 14:45

Yes white workers are comperatively better off, or priviligied if you'd like, but they would be even better off if they didn't have to compete with disadvantaged and more desperate workers. So it is in the direct material self interest for a white worker to fight against racism.

Well, yeah, not only white workers but also colored workers would be better off materially. That is partly what I meant when I wrote: As for why men and white people would be interested in this social revolution to begin with; because capitalism becomes a brake and fetter on the further development of the productive forces, and it is in the ultimate and general material self-interest of the proletariat (of all races and genders) to overthrow it.

Notice that I argued against view that "racist power structures" are "independent of capitalism". Racism and sexism are material realities - I was merely arguing what is the political significance of these power structures being independent of capitalism - which they are not. women are opressed because under the division of labor they got the shaft /i.e. males had the financial recources in marriage while women did menial labor)-

Yes, I agree with that, and have been saying that all along. I'm not sure who was saying otherwise though.

manic expression

22nd August 2009, 16:55

Yes, I probably did, because I don't read your posts; I consider them to be utter trash. Also, if I wanted to hear about the white man's burden I'd go outside and talk to some random white male; I don't need to read your posts on Revleft to know about it.

Nice misuse of "white man's burden", it will be informative to see how quickly Tim Wise's anti-worker diatribes rub off on you.

Oh, and if you don't read my posts, don't be surprised if you look like you're just randomly wandered in here, because you do.

This is an irrelevant straw-man. Yes, there are whites who aren't racist, and there are men who aren't sexist. That doesn't change the fact that due to the institutions of power and private property being predominately owned by white men in white-dominated societies these societies are inherently sexist and racist.

I agree with that.

You can choose to ignore this and point to the exceptions to the rule (which always exist, one of the more extreme examples being Nazis who weren't anti-semitic), or you can call things by what they are and fight it more efficiently by doing so.

I'm not pointing to exceptions. Indian, Arab, African, Asian, Latino and Black capitalists are NOT exceptions, and the countless workers who are directly exploited by them can tell you that. Further, whites who aren't racist are not exceptions either, and it's an unnecessary swipe at multiple nations for you to insinuate as much.

If you don't want to deal with nuance, which is essentially what you're saying, stay out of this debate, because there are few things more nuanced than race relations. Plus, if you don't want to apply a scientific analysis to the issue either, just don't bother.

There are other power structures than simple capitalism. Racial, gender-based, based on sexuality. Of course they all interact with capitalism- which in many ways is an overarching power structure, but NOT the only one. That point of view is reductionist in the extreme, and leads to the neglect of a wide range of oppression.

I see what you're saying, but there's no such thing as "simple capitalism", especially in the imperialist epoch.

I think that the Marxist position is "reductionist" because capitalist society is reductionist: everything and everyone is subverted to profit. Racism, sexism, general chauvinism arise out of necessity in this context; modern racism did not exist before the ascension of the bourgeoisie. Racism, as it stands, revolves around the class dynamics that capitalism has set forth. Due to these considerations and more, our analysis must pinpoint the origins and sourced behind the oppression you speak of.

Lastly, perhaps we should get more in-depth here. What actual power structures are you talking about? The American executive branch? The police force? The judiciary? We need specificity here if we want to truly penetrate the subject.

And in the sense that capitalism was born out of Western colonialism and imperialism- you could argue that- at least in an etymological sense, it IS white. Not that that is a particularly productive thing to say,but it wasn't a particularly productive question to ask, since, as I outlined above, discrimination and oppression is a multifactorial thing.

Japanese merchants were developing something of a proto-capitalist society by the 19th Century IIRC. Plus, I had been speaking of non-whites embracing the capitalist mode of production and becoming bourgeois themselves. However, I see your overall point and I largely agree here.

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 17:12

it will be informative to see how quickly Tim Wise's anti-worker diatribes rub off on you.

You mean like how the Marcyite anti-worker diatribes rubbed off on you?

That won't happen. I've already criticized Tim Wise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1523850&postcount=27) for that.

I'm not pointing to exceptions. Indian, Arab, African, Asian, Latino and Black capitalists are NOT exceptions, and the countless workers who are directly exploited by them can tell you that. Further, whites who aren't racist are not exceptions either, and it's an unnecessary swipe at multiple nations for you to insinuate as much.

Uh, I was referring to exceptions on the issue of white privilege, not white racism. They are not one and the same.

RedAnarchist

22nd August 2009, 18:22

I've trashed the off-topic flame-posts. LZ and Manic Expression please stop the flaming.

eyedrop

22nd August 2009, 20:21

Well, yeah, not only white workers but also colored workers would be better off materially. That is partly what I meant when I wrote: As for why men and white people would be interested in this social revolution to begin with; because capitalism becomes a brake and fetter on the further development of the productive forces, and it is in the ultimate and general material self-interest of the proletariat (of all races and genders) to overthrow it.
I read this as just that priviligied and oppressed would both gain by the overthrow of capitalism, while I think that it is an equally important point that they would be better off in a less racist capitalism. To get white workers to join the fight against racism you need to show them what they can gain by it right now.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd August 2009, 00:15

I'd like to see a response to this point by Gravedigger.

If it is true that "white" workers gain by the institutional racism, wouldn't they have a material self interest in keeping it? I'm not disputing that there is instituional racism (I've witnessed to many slips from folks in charge of hiring), or that "coloured" people generally get a different reaction from folks. But white workers don't gain by it.

I think the main reason why anti-immigrant conservative parties (in Europe atleast, here they are the 2nd largest party) are have increased their the working class support. Established workers see an immigrant workforce, with lesser bargaining power, who they have to compete with and the anti-immigrant conservative parties promises to remove it.

I don't know if you are trying to counter my argument - if so, I guess I did not explain it very well.

If, as argued by "whiteness theory" the ruling class used racism to privilege certain groups over others in order to buy their loyalty (as is the case in Israel or Apartheid South Africa or the settler-era in the US with giving one group free stolen land or plunder or extra-legal rights) then yes, white racists would be, in their own fucked up racist way, correct to fight to protect the system.

In contemporary US and many other countries where the ruling class uses racism, it is not to privilege one group over others, it is to oppress some groups in order to rule the whole. So, is it that the US ruling class wanted to get rid of welfare to privilege whites? That doesn't make any sense since most of the people on welfare in the US are whites! So the ruling class used all this racist imagery and rhetoric to create the racist myth of black "welfare queens" who have babies to "steal" tax money. Racism since the civil rights era has been systematic and use to cut all social spending - not give social spending to all whites on the backs of oppressed groups.

Likewise voter disenfranchisement in the south after the Civil War was a racist measure directed at blacks, but far from "privileging whites" it also caused massive disfranchisement of poor rural whites.

We on the left should fight for increasing the immigrants (or other disadvantaged workers) bargaining power up to the level of the established workers.I fully agree - the way to go is to fight racism and any discriminatory laws so that we can build strength and unity in the working class.