Race, class, and "whiteness theory"

[Jimmie Higgins]

ISR: Race, class, and "whiteness theory" (http://www.isreview.org/issues/46/whiteness.shtml)

I thought this article from the ISR might be interesting for people in light of the 20+ page thread about Black Nationalism over in OI.

[Manic Impressive]

great article I especially liked this bit


Marxism properly interpreted emphasizes the primacy of class in a number of senses. One, of course, is the primacy of the working class as a revolutionary agent—a primacy which does not, as often thought, render women and people of color “secondary.” Such an equation of white male and working class, as well as a corresponding division between a “white” male working class identity and all the others, whose identity is thereby viewed as either primarily one of gender and race or hybrid, is a view this essay contests all along the way. The primacy of class means that building a multiracial, multi-gendered international working-class organization or organizations should be the goal of any revolutionary movement: the primacy of class puts the fight against racism and sexism at the center. The intelligibility of this position is rooted in the explanatory primacy of class analysis for understanding the structural determinants of race, gender and class oppression. Oppression is multiple and intersecting but its causes are not.18
Designating class as the primary antagonism in capitalist society bears no inference on the “importance” of racism, as Roediger claims. Marxism merely assumes a causal relationship—that white supremacy as a system was instituted by capital, to the detriment of labor as a whole. Marxist theory rests on the assumption that white workers do not benefit from a system of white supremacy. Indeed, Marx argued of slavery, the most oppressive of all systems of exploitation, “In the United States of America, every independent workers’ movement was paralyzed as long as slavery disfigured part of the republic. Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded.”19

[Jimmie Higgins]

great article I especially liked this bitAnd I think during high-points in class and social struggle in the US, it wasn't just Marxists drawing more or less a similar conclusion like the Fredrick Douglas quote above (They divide to rule each) and Malcolm X's assertion that capitalism without racism is impossible as well as the members of the Populist Movement and later the labor movement who saw at periods of intense struggle that fighting racism is a key to liberation for both black and non-black workers.

[Revolutionair]

Finally, some Marxism in here. +1

[khad]

But Roediger’s analysis is flawed on several counts. First, he appears to assume that working-class interests have been defined historically only by the actions of white males, as if women and African Americans—not to mention other oppressed populations—have not played an active role in defining working-class identity.I can tell this fuckwit didn't even bother to read the text he's bashing. Roediger has his problems, but it's a stretch to lambaste him for supposedly treating whiteness as a whites-only historical narrative. Or was the entire section on Negro Election Day and mixed-race festivals that were systematically repressed in the Early Republic just a figment of my imagination?


Marxist theory rests on the assumption that white workers do not benefit from a system of white supremacy. Indeed, Marx argued of slavery, the most oppressive of all systems of exploitation, “In the United States of America, every independent workers’ movement was paralyzed as long as slavery disfigured part of the republic. Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded.”Oh, put a sock in it, ISO. Roediger describes Whiteness as a "psychological wage." He never says that self-defined "whites" benefited on an absolute scale of material criteria. What it was was a concept through which Early Republican and Jacksonian artisans articulated their sense of working class identity and solidarity--based on the fear of materially falling into a state of servitude like slavery. The primary purpose of this argument is to account for why the white working class went along with the ruling class's efforts to racially divide the working class.

It's one version of why "every independent workers’ movement was paralyzed as long as slavery disfigured part of the republic."

If you're going to criticize Roediger, criticize him on this ground. Or the fact that his argument is one that is specific to Antebellum America with its focus on slavery and the various practices that defined the category of "free blacks."

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can tell this fuckwit didn't even bother to read the text he's bashing.
She. The name's at the top of the text several times.


Or was the entire section on Negro Election Day and mixed-race festivals that were systematically repressed in the Early Republic just a figment of my imagination?


But the important instances of racial unity even during the era of segregation merit explanation. Roediger himself admits,
The popular working class consciousness that emerged during the later stages of the Civil War, especially in the North, saw the liberation of Black slaves as a model, and not just as a threat. Like freedpeople, white workers came to see the Civil War as a “Jubilee” and, in the words of Detroit labor leader Richard Trevellick, to hope that “we are about to be emancipated.”9
Nevertheless, Roediger concludes, “The meager record of biracial organization does not allow us to fall back on the generalization that Black-white unity automatically places labor in a better tactical position from which to attack capital.”10

Although Roediger claims otherwise, the political framework for whiteness theory appears deeply indebted to an offshoot of postmodernism known as “identity politics,” popular among much of the post-1970s academic left.12


Oh, put a sock in it, ISO. Roediger describes Whiteness as a "psychological wage." He never says that self-defined "whites" benefited on an absolute scale of material criteria. What it was was a concept through which Early Republican and Jacksonian artisans articulated their sense of working class identity and solidarity--based on the fear of materially falling into a state of servitude like slavery. The primary purpose of this argument is to account for why the white working class went along with the ruling class's efforts to racially divide the working class.

This is a general argument about the theory I have not read this book so I can not state what the central arguments are -- but never the less, this is not the point of the article, it is not a review of that book.

Would you like to take on the arguments? Do you support whiteness theory, are the arguments about it in this article wrong, if you don't agree with the theory, is there a better argument?

[Coach Trotsky]

ISR: Race, class, and "whiteness theory" (http://www.isreview.org/issues/46/whiteness.shtml)

I thought this article from the ISR might be interesting for people in light of the 20+ page thread about Black Nationalism over in OI.

Thanks for posting this article. I just finished reading it over, and need some time to think it over before I comment on it, but my first impression was that it was a breath of needed fresh air compared to what I've been accustomed to in the U.S. Left (especially during the 1990s).

[Coach Trotsky]

I'm linking another thread here, just so everyone here can see one of many examples of Leftists (both newbies and long-time Leftists) buying into the "white privileged oppressors" theories.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/white-nation-privilege-t156932/index.html?t=156932

[Martin Blank]

Decent article. A good ABC on the question.