Is being white roughly equivalent to being a member of the boureoisie?

[Unclebananahead]

If you are white in somewhere other than Eastern Europe, does your 'white privilege' make you roughly equivalent to being in the bourgeoisie?

The following statement was made to me by someone I know, after a brief exchange, in which I posed the above question to him. I'd like some analysis/insight from you RevLefters:

"being a beneficiary and reinforcer of a structure of power that oppresses a very large section of the populace? so [they are] roughly [equivalent]. i mean, not every bourgeois actively builds the structure of power that oppresses the proletariat, they just utilize class oppression for their own gain, same as white people use racial oppression for their gain."

[MustCrushCapitalism]

No. There exists a proletariat in every nation, be it an imperialist nation or a nation victim to imperialism. The proletariat's global class interest is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their system of capitalism. There are white proletarians and bourgeoisie, there are black proletarians and bourgeoisie. This distinction is irrelevant to communists.

[Zukunftsmusik]

If you are white in somewhere other than Eastern Europe, does your 'white privilege' make you roughly equivalent to being in the bourgeoisie?

Not at all. If you're white and sell your labour power, you're still a worker. I hate notions that try to distort class politics into matters of "race", the color of people's skin or your location in the world (as if national liberation in the "third world" is any less bourgeois than western nationalism).

The bourgeoisie have used and use racial politics to distort the real issue at hand (divide and conquer, in a sense), and historically race has been used as an "excuse" to exploit people more. But racism is a bourgeois ideology, ie a distortion/reflection of reality. To make the bourgeoisie simply into "white people in western europe" is indeed a distortion of reality, and a disastrous one at that, given that the idea would actually be accepted among many people. Which I hope not and think not would happen.



"being a beneficiary and reinforcer of a structure of power that oppresses a very large section of the populace? so [they are] roughly [equivalent]. i mean, not every bourgeois actively builds the structure of power that oppresses the proletariat, they just utilize class oppression for their own gain, same as white people use racial oppression for their gain."

How do I, as a white person that lives in western europe, "benefice and reinforce a structure that oppresses a very large section of the populace (ie everyone that's not white)", simply by be being white? How do me being white make me gain anything by "using racial oppression"? The quote is a gigantic simplification, wrong, even.

[Comrades Unite!]

No of course not, Race does not identify anybody as either Capitalist or Worker.

[Positivist]

Being white does not inherently amount to reinforcing the structure of racial oppression. While it is true that this structure is almost exclusively enforced by white people, as they are the exclusive beneficiaries, this does not mean that being white in and of itself enforces it. To be honest that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. An equivalent statement would be that enforce the structure of racial oppression by being black.

Being white is a fixed characteristic, barring some sort of physical scarring, while being a capitalist is a constant process. You can be a capitalist at one point in your life, and a proletarian later. With all due respect, your friend doesn't seem to have any idea what a capitalist is. Every single capitalist not only benefits from the structure of class oppression, but enforces it through exploiting surplus value to turn a profit. If they do not enforce the structure, they do not benefit from it, and cease to be a capitalist.

Aslo being white is only beneficial by comparison to being some discrimianted race. Its not like not letting non-white people from using the same bathroom really benefits white people, it is just harmful to non-white people.

[Rational Radical]

Absolutely not,only private ownership over the means of production does. racial oppression has produced super-exploitation on ethnic minorities and they tend to be marginalized in society more than others,but this doesn't mean whites are immune to oppression due to socioeconomic conditions.The bourgeoisie isn't limited to whites either.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Absolutely not,only private ownership over the means of production does.

to be fair, the OP says "roughly equivalent". But it's still horribly wrong.

[#FF0000]

It might make you "privileged" in that you don't have to deal with the mountain of shit that comes along with not being white in the western world. Doesn't make one an/the oppressor tho.

[Conscript]

Being part of any nation regardless of its wealth does necessarily make you any sort of class.

[Rational Radical]

to be fair, the OP says "roughly equivalent". But it's still horribly wrong.

I still don't think it's roughly close,in order for you to be bourgeois you have to have a monopoly of both economic and political power,noy just simply being white. White privilege is very real and I obviously acknowledge that ethnic minorities are super-exploited due to a number of causes (slavery,colonization,unfair treatment,inequality,neglect,abuse,economic strangulation)

[Lowtech]

being a part of the elites, the rich etc means that you consume more than you produce, especially on a large enough scale that it is directly at the detriment of everyone else, this is the mathematical distinction the rich have versus everyone else, your ethnicity can effect your chances of being a part of such group, however...

simply to make the connection between the elites and white people as a culture/race, is inaccurate.

i agree that white privilege does exist but it is supported by money held by those people, not specifically because of their race, perhaps largely attributed to their ethnic heritage yes, but this is not consistent among everyone that is "white," so being white does not itself translate to being a part of the elites in every case.

[Per Levy]

If you are white in somewhere other than Eastern Europe, does your 'white privilege' make you roughly equivalent to being in the bourgeoisie?

sadly it doesnt, otherwise i wouldnt had all these financial problems that come with haveing a working poor job.

[Jazzratt]

In order for capitalism to be destroyed the working class must destroy the bourgeoisie as the culmination of the class war. Ending racism, despite what the more paranoid wing of the racist right might insist, doesn't require us to destroy whites as a culmination of the "race war."

[#FF0000]

kill all whites though

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Bourgeois scum:
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMWLZVpWqfCtJrNzKyT92ceMQXL5APS gQrLxRI1GUSKjvXs0KJ

[Ocean Seal]

Somewhere Oprah is laughing at you.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Although there are countries where one's skin tone is usually pretty closely aligned with one's social status, it's definitely not something that can be crudely characterized as "white = bourgeoisie", LOL. There are far too many exceptions for that to be considered anywhere close to factual.

And actually in the USA there are large amounts of non-whites in the middle income strata, a category that some leftists rather crudely designate as the sole domain of petty bourgeois white people. It's absolutely ridiculous, but subtletly and nuance has never been something the left has been known for. ;)

[Amon]

Once communism is achieved, there shall be no whites, blacks, asians etc. There shall be human beings, something which the bourgeois doesn't seem to acknowledge. They use racial distinction for their own gain and to keep the people separated.

[Pretty Flaco]

actually youre mistaken. all white people are nazis.

[Ostrinski]

I'm tired of these threads. I am so sick and fucking tired of these god damned threads.

[Rafiq]

What? Such a stupid question... Tell me, uncle, are you 12? Have you rendered your conception of the most basic and elementary component of Marxist thought completely obsolete? I can't believe this question exists..

[The Jay]

If you are white in somewhere other than Eastern Europe, does your 'white privilege' make you roughly equivalent to being in the bourgeoisie?

The following statement was made to me by someone I know, after a brief exchange, in which I posed the above question to him. I'd like some analysis/insight from you RevLefters:

"being a beneficiary and reinforcer of a structure of power that oppresses a very large section of the populace? so [they are] roughly [equivalent]. i mean, not every bourgeois actively builds the structure of power that oppresses the proletariat, they just utilize class oppression for their own gain, same as white people use racial oppression for their gain."


Hahahaha no. Just no. You would do best to learn the definition of the bourgeois class, which has been discussed and explicitly stated in many threads including this one. I echo Lizard King in lamenting these threads.




Once communism is achieved, there shall be no whites, blacks, asians etc. There shall be human beings, something which the bourgeois doesn't seem to acknowledge. They use racial distinction for their own gain and to keep the people separated.

The existence of the last sentence does not lead to the first sentence. The second sentence is just weird. Depending on how you define race matters whether it is factually wrong or not.

[#FF0000]

What? Such a stupid question... Tell me, uncle, are you 12? Have you rendered your conception of the most basic and elementary component of Marxist thought completely obsolete? I can't believe this question exists..

hey actually fuck off

[Yuppie Grinder]

what? Such a stupid question... Tell me, uncle, are you 12? Have you rendered your conception of the most basic and elementary component of marxist thought completely obsolete? I can't believe this question exists..

someone new to marxism doesn't understand it very well? What an asshole fucking kill him.

[blake 3:17]

No of course not, Race does not identify anybody as either Capitalist or Worker.

It depends on the social context. In South Africa, White workers received far more in wages than any value they produced. The surplus value of Black workers was redistributed on the basis of race.

[Lynx]

White angst doesn't help anyone.

[Kenco Smooth]

What? Such a stupid question... Tell me, uncle, are you 12? Have you rendered your conception of the most basic and elementary component of Marxist thought completely obsolete? I can't believe this question exists..

"A place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues. Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless."

We get it, you've sorted everything out. That's nice and all but don't be an ass about it.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

someone new to marxism doesn't understand it very well? What an asshole fucking kill him.

Uncle has been a member for three years, you would guess he at least lost a bit of stupid. Hang him high.

[Devrim]

It depends on the social context. In South Africa, White workers received far more in wages than any value they produced. The surplus value of Black workers was redistributed on the basis of race.

I would be very surprised if that were true. White workers may well have been paid more than black workers, but I doubt they were employed at a loss.


I still don't think it's roughly close,in order for you to be bourgeois you have to have a monopoly of both economic and political power,noy just simply being white. White privilege is very real and I obviously acknowledge that ethnic minorities are super-exploited due to a number of causes (slavery,colonization,unfair treatment,inequality,neglect,abuse,economic strangulation)

Exploitation, in Communist terms, is a measure of the extraction of surplus value. I am not sure what you mean by ethnic minorities being super-exploited. The last time I worked in Western Europe (which is a few decades ago), at the places I worked, all workers, regardless of race, were paid the same amount, and therefore exploited at the same level.

Devrim

[islandmilitia]

No. There exists a proletariat in every nation, be it an imperialist nation or a nation victim to imperialism. The proletariat's global class interest is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their system of capitalism. There are white proletarians and bourgeoisie, there are black proletarians and bourgeoisie. This distinction is irrelevant to communists.

Nonsense, the distinction between black and white workers should be absolutely central to revolutionary practice. It may be the case that revolutionaries conceptualize our ultimate political goals in terms of the worldwide overthrow of capitalism by an organized proletariat, but the fact is that, to paraphrase Lenin's comments on the Easter Rising, politics is complicated, and class struggle hardly ever involved the proletariat simply lining itself up against the bourgeoisie without there being any scope for internal differences and divisions whatsoever. I don't believe that white workers are the direct recipients of surplus value from the exploitation of black workers within particular capitalist societies, and I'm quite skeptical about the idea of the labour aristocracy as well, but what I would argue is that capitalism could not exist except on the basis of systems of racial oppression, and that, rather than seeing racism and class oppression as two separate systems, or, worse, seeing racism as something wholly ideological, we should recognize that race is central to the way that capitalism is organized, in a very concrete sense, especially in terms of the division of labour within the working class, the role of race in colonial ideology, and the way different groups of workers experience the role of the state.

So, in answer to the OP, I would not say that race and class (or whiteness and bourgeoisie) are analogous or equivalent, I would say that as Marxists we need to see society as an organic totality in which class and race cannot be extricated from one another. The decision of revolutionaries is whether we recognize the fundamental link between race and capitalism and incorporate that understanding into our organizational culture, or whether we simply issue abstract and blind calls for unity between workers, which means rejecting any real historical understanding of how capitalism has evolved and structured itself in different societies and at different points of history.

[Rational Radical]

I would be very surprised if that were true. White workers may well have been paid more than black workers, but I doubt they were employed at a loss.



Exploitation, in Communist terms, is a measure of the extraction of surplus value. I am not sure what you mean by ethnic minorities being super-exploited. The last time I worked in Western Europe (which is a few decades ago), at the places I worked, all workers, regardless of race, were paid the same amount, and therefore exploited at the same level.

Devrim

As I've pointed out ethnic minorities (more specifically the USA) face more oppression with the inheritance of slavery,inequality,lack of economic growth,poverty,governmental abuse etc. and thus make up more of the poor in America and have to either work menial jobs or commit crimes more often than the majority ethnic groups.

[Rafiq]

someone new to marxism doesn't understand it very well? What an asshole fucking kill him.

Fuck you, Uncle is an old user, you shit. He isn't new.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

"A place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues. Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless."

We get it, you've sorted everything out. That's nice and all but don't be an ass about it.

Uncle should know better. He's been here for quite a while.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[ВАЛТЕР]

Nope. If it was then I would be owning some means of production and be exploiting the shit out of some people right now, instead of doing whatever it is I am doing.

[Devrim]

As I've pointed out ethnic minorities (more specifically the USA) face more oppression with the inheritance of slavery,inequality,lack of economic growth,poverty,governmental abuse etc. and thus make up more of the poor in America and have to either work menial jobs or commit crimes more often than the majority ethnic groups.

Of course it is 'more specific to the USA'. Many US posters on here seem to imagine that the US is the whole world.

Back to the point though, oppression and exploitation are not in anyway synonymous. The inheritance of slavery has nothing to do with exploitation. Exploitation is the rate of extraction of surplus value. Two workers who work equally hard and are paid the same in the same job are equally exploited. What colour they are has nothing to do with it at all.

Neither does being in a menial job with low pay and poor conditions mean that you are more exploited that a worker in a 'good' job, with 'good' pay and 'good' conditions. In fact the worker in the 'better' job will more often than not be the more exploited as she creates more surplus value.

Devrim

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Exploitation, in Communist terms, is a measure of the extraction of surplus value. I am not sure what you mean by ethnic minorities being super-exploited. The last time I worked in Western Europe (which is a few decades ago), at the places I worked, all workers, regardless of race, were paid the same amount, and therefore exploited at the same level.

Devrim
A lot of the times people at the same skill level doing the same thing get payed different wages, especially immigrants. My sister in law is an illegal and therefore is usually paid under the table. Her last job she didn't even get paid her last two weeks of labor, the boss told her she wasn't getting her check, that she had to go. So I know firsthand that this does happen.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Fuck you, Uncle is an old user, you shit. He isn't new.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

oh well, you're still needlessly angry 100% of the time
also i kno some pretty radical 12 year olds donn't discriminate

[Ostrinski]

They also has 300 posts, which gives them plenty of time to have learned the answers to questions such as these.

[Ocean Seal]

hey actually fuck off
Why?

someone new to marxism doesn't understand it very well? What an asshole fucking kill him.
The OP is not new to Marxism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

this isn't the first foray from our friend unclebananahead into this topic, LOL:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/white-working-class-t163962/index.html

[kurr]

There are white proletarians and bourgeoisie, there are black proletarians and bourgeoisie. This distinction is irrelevant to communists.

Therein lies the problem with the White "left" and Marxism. The goal of multinational unity is a pure fairytale dream unattainable by the simple fact that the white working class has always historically identified with the ruling class. Not just in the US but in Europe as well.

We can continue to say "but they are DUPED" till the cows come home but from the time that Europeans voluntarily engaged in the slaughter of Indigenous peoples not just here but all over the world to mass gatherings of White working class peoples at the hangings of Africans for pure entertainment value to modern lynch mobs, vigilantes, pigs, prison guards, defense workers, etc. The pathetic excuse of "duping" or "misinformation" can only go so far.

We can pretend its 1870 and Marx's heyday all we want. Wait, no we can't because the same still applies.

The best theory Marx contributed to the history of ideas was primitive accumulation, by far. Too bad he had far too much hope in the European working class to the point where he didn't realize the magnitude of his own discoveries.

So back to the OP's question: The White working class is a strong part of the oppressor nation who has historically aligned itself with it's values and aspirations. The White working class has voluntarily taken measures to prevent any kind of blow against Imperial White power and has voluntarily defended it. The White working class is not the bourgeoisie in the sense of property ownership but it is an ally despite measures taken by the bourgeoisie against some of the interests of sections of the White working class.

In the event that I'm called a "Third Worldist" for this post, let me make myself quite clear. I believe the revolutionary force has always been the most oppressed and I believe in national liberation. If you can't make the distinction, it's on you.

[blake 3:17]

I would be very surprised if that were true. White workers may well have been paid more than black workers, but I doubt they were employed at a loss.


I heard this claim made at an educational on Marxist economics given by Steve Bloom about 10 years ago. There's a problem of wage differences, but also who gets which jobs.

One source which backs this claim up: http://www.dadalos.org/int/menschenrechte/grundkurs_mr5/Apartheid/apartheid/bestandteile/wirtschaft.htm

Another: http://www.marxists.org/archive/padmore/1938/white-workers-black.htm

Another - "1946: African mine workers are paid twelve times less than their white counterparts and are forced to do the most dangerous jobs." http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/discrim/race_b_at_print.asp

[Devrim]

I heard this claim made at an educational on Marxist economics given by Steve Bloom about 10 years ago. There's a problem of wage differences, but also who gets which jobs.

One source which backs this claim up: http://www.dadalos.org/int/menschenrechte/grundkurs_mr5/Apartheid/apartheid/bestandteile/wirtschaft.htm

Another: http://www.marxists.org/archive/padmore/1938/white-workers-black.htm

Another - "1946: African mine workers are paid twelve times less than their white counterparts and are forced to do the most dangerous jobs." http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/discrim/race_b_at_print.asp

I have read through your links, and in none of them can I find anything that supports what you are claiming; "In South Africa, White workers received far more in wages than any value they produced."

I have seen that black workers were paid far less than white workers, which I think everybody already knew, but there is nothing there that says that white workers weren't exploited too (as a technical term refering to the extraction of surplus value).

What I would ask is why would any company employ workers from whom they didn't make a profit?

Devrim

[Andropov]

We can continue to say "but they are DUPED" till the cows come home but from the time that Europeans voluntarily engaged in the slaughter of Indigenous peoples not just here but all over the world to mass gatherings of White working class peoples at the hangings of Africans for pure entertainment value to modern lynch mobs, vigilantes, pigs, prison guards, defense workers, etc. The pathetic excuse of "duping" or "misinformation" can only go so far.
What about Ireland? Most ethnic Irish people happen to be white and European and incidentally had the joys of imperialism for years and all that goes along with it? The war's, oppression, rape, slaughter, slavery and brutality that goes hand in hand with it. How does that fit into this black and white viewing of the world?

[Devrim]

A lot of the times people at the same skill level doing the same thing get payed different wages, especially immigrants. My sister in law is an illegal and therefore is usually paid under the table. Her last job she didn't even get paid her last two weeks of labor, the boss told her she wasn't getting her check, that she had to go. So I know firsthand that this does happen.

Yes, of course this happens, but it is not a function of race, but of nationality. If you can't work legally you tend to get screwed. However, it isn't because your sister in law is not white, but because she is illegal. The same thing happens in the US to illegal Irish workers, who are pretty white.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Therein lies the problem with the White "left" and Marxism. The goal of multinational unity is a pure fairytale dream unattainable by the simple fact that the white working class has always historically identified with the ruling class.

uh that's simply not true though. There are innumerable examples of multinational unity, to this day international trade federations and unions send financial support to struggles all over the globe. Sooooo...

[kurr]

What about Ireland? Most ethnic Irish people happen to be white and European and incidentally had the joys of imperialism for years and all that goes along with it? The war's, oppression, rape, slaughter, slavery and brutality that goes hand in hand with it. How does that fit into this black and white viewing of the world?

Good question. I thought my mention of being in support of national liberation would hint at this but nevertheless.

Ireland was not historically part of the robbing of the world until maybe more recent times, as I'm sure you're aware. And even then, not even remotely close to the extent of Western Europe. It's England, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, etc and then the United States, Canada, and so on. That is what I'm basically getting at here. That's not to say that Irish immigrants to the US weren't eager to become "American" though.

The paper called "Level of Economic Development (http://www.irsp.ie/Background/theory/ecodevelopment.html)" from your party notes that modern day Ireland is still kept a level of dependency by the "advanced" capitalists countries. So it's a different situation than, say, in France. You know?

[kurr]

uh that's simply not true though. There are innumerable examples of multinational unity, to this day international trade federations and unions send financial support to struggles all over the globe. Sooooo...

Are you actually trying to insist that "international trade federations" and unions are anything but marginal? It's too bad because that's all they are.

I mean, you're essentially making a charity argument here.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This question isn't material in it's nature thus within the context, seems silly.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't want to downplay working class racism but I think dividing the class by racial lines is an unnecessary waste of time. While it's undeniably true that the bulk of the white working class has been against radical emancipation by racial minorities, I think it's also important to keep in mind that historically the bulk of the global working class has been against radical emancipation of themselves as well. I think the fact that 9 times out of 10 the class as a whole acts as it's own worst enemy is of more interest than why certain segments of it align themselves against other segments. It seems likely to me that the second thing is a result of the first thing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Are you actually trying to insist that "international trade federations" and unions are anything but marginal? It's too bad because that's all they are.

I mean, you're essentially making a charity argument here.

Unions, while definitely not "progressive" (in the sense that they're intrinsically socialist) in-and-of themselves, are definitely not marginal...while a low percentage of workers in the United States are unionized, many in extremely important sectors of the national economy are. In Europe and elsewhere the percentage of unionized workers is higher.

And as for trade federations, one recently formed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/industriall-new-step-t173011/index.html) which counts 50 million members. That's hardly marginal.

[kurr]

Unions, while definitely not "progressive" (in the sense that they're intrinsically socialist) in-and-of themselves, are definitely not marginal...while a low percentage of workers in the United States are unionized, many in extremely important sectors of the national economy are. In Europe and elsewhere the percentage of unionized workers is higher.

And as for trade federations, one recently formed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/industriall-new-step-t173011/index.html) which counts 50 million members. That's hardly marginal.



As Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union, put it in Denmark, "It sends a message to greedy multinational corporations that we are not going to simply stand by and watch them trample the rights of workers, no matter where in the world it is happening. Our solidarity is not limited by borders, language barriers, or cultural differences. We are determined to break down any barriers that divide us so we can do a better job of standing up for the rights of all workers."
..

We should note the role in the founding of IndustriALL of the United Steelworkers, Workers Uniting, and Britain's Unite. Workers Uniting is the merger of the USW and Unite! - the largest industrial union in Britain. Workers Uniting is also a pioneering effort to form a global union structure.


Oh, so it's a predominately European/Western federation started to fight for more pie and attacks from the already agreed upon pie. Gotcha.

And if they were not "progressive" in your eyes, why did you even bother to bring them up? The dogmatic Leftist representation of unions is that they are progressive in some way which is not the case.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh, so it's a predominately European/Western federation started to fight for more pie and attacks from the already agreed upon pie. Gotcha.

Yes, absolutely.


There were 1,000 delegates for the founding in Copenhagen. While no credentials report has been made public yet, the convention's daily bulletin featured unionists from many countries, attesting to the international diversity of the delegates. Delegates are quoted from Colombia, India, Belarus, South Africa, Germany, Brazil, Bangladesh, Niger, Finland, and Cambodia. Others quoted included a delegate from the Namibian Union of Metal workers and Spanish union delegates representing striking miners.


And if they were not "progressive" in your eyes, why did you even bother to bring them up? The dogmatic Leftist representation of unions is that they are progressive in some way which is not the case.

They provide (or rather are capable of providing...there are many unions which are more-or-less worthless) a bulwark against attacks on the benefits workers have fought for. They provide a forum in which workers can strategize and share ideas about how to claw more benefits out of whatever business they're a part of.

[blake 3:17]

Yes, of course this happens, but it is not a function of race, but of nationality. If you can't work legally you tend to get screwed. However, it isn't because your sister in law is not white, but because she is illegal. The same thing happens in the US to illegal Irish workers, who are pretty white.

Devrim

I can accept that on certain levels. It does seem a bit legalistic to me, and doesn't take into account how class formations actually happen. Who gets their papers checked?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Therein lies the problem with the White "left" and Marxism. The goal of multinational unity is a pure fairytale dream unattainable by the simple fact that the white working class has always historically identified with the ruling class. Not just in the US but in Europe as well.

We can continue to say "but they are DUPED" till the cows come home but from the time that Europeans voluntarily engaged in the slaughter of Indigenous peoples not just here but all over the world to mass gatherings of White working class peoples at the hangings of Africans for pure entertainment value to modern lynch mobs, vigilantes, pigs, prison guards, defense workers, etc. The pathetic excuse of "duping" or "misinformation" can only go so far.

We can pretend its 1870 and Marx's heyday all we want. Wait, no we can't because the same still applies.

The best theory Marx contributed to the history of ideas was primitive accumulation, by far. Too bad he had far too much hope in the European working class to the point where he didn't realize the magnitude of his own discoveries.

So back to the OP's question: The White working class is a strong part of the oppressor nation who has historically aligned itself with it's values and aspirations. The White working class has voluntarily taken measures to prevent any kind of blow against Imperial White power and has voluntarily defended it. The White working class is not the bourgeoisie in the sense of property ownership but it is an ally despite measures taken by the bourgeoisie against some of the interests of sections of the White working class.

In the event that I'm called a "Third Worldist" for this post, let me make myself quite clear. I believe the revolutionary force has always been the most oppressed and I believe in national liberation. If you can't make the distinction, it's on you.
Seriously? Well I'm glad black leaders in Africa never turned their backs(and guns) on the people to oppress the population in the interests of international capital. Oh wait, they did in just about every "national liberation" struggle. It has everything to do with class and the ability of the capitalist class to oppress, control, and DUPE the oppressed classes. That's not a white problem.

[robbo203]

Therein lies the problem with the White "left" and Marxism. The goal of multinational unity is a pure fairytale dream unattainable by the simple fact that the white working class has always historically identified with the ruling class. Not just in the US but in Europe as well.

We can continue to say "but they are DUPED" till the cows come home but from the time that Europeans voluntarily engaged in the slaughter of Indigenous peoples not just here but all over the world to mass gatherings of White working class peoples at the hangings of Africans for pure entertainment value to modern lynch mobs, vigilantes, pigs, prison guards, defense workers, etc. The pathetic excuse of "duping" or "misinformation" can only go so far.

We can pretend its 1870 and Marx's heyday all we want. Wait, no we can't because the same still applies.

The best theory Marx contributed to the history of ideas was primitive accumulation, by far. Too bad he had far too much hope in the European working class to the point where he didn't realize the magnitude of his own discoveries.

So back to the OP's question: The White working class is a strong part of the oppressor nation who has historically aligned itself with it's values and aspirations. The White working class has voluntarily taken measures to prevent any kind of blow against Imperial White power and has voluntarily defended it. The White working class is not the bourgeoisie in the sense of property ownership but it is an ally despite measures taken by the bourgeoisie against some of the interests of sections of the White working class.

In the event that I'm called a "Third Worldist" for this post, let me make myself quite clear. I believe the revolutionary force has always been the most oppressed and I believe in national liberation. If you can't make the distinction, it's on you.

Its precisely this kind of thinking that is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It appears to me to be based on Lenin's crackpot theory of the "labour aristocracy" - the idea that workers in the advanced capitalist countries are somehow "bribed" by the capitalist class by sharing in the spoils of imperialist exploitation. Actually, there are two versions of this since Lenin could not quite seem to make his mind up on whether it was the working class as a whole that benefitted or just a section within it. In an event, it is an utterly absurd idea and easily refutable on empirical and logical grounds


Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by western capitalist countires is only small proportion of their total investment and the great bulk of that is invested in other advanced capitalist countries, meaning there is only a relative tiny percentage of capital invested directly by them in the Global South - 1.25% ("The Labor Aristocracy Myth" , International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV381 - September 2006). Not only that , at least as far the version of the labour aristocracy idea that hold only a section of the workers in the advanced economies benefit from this mysterious act of generosity that their capitalists confer on them, it has been shown that the exact opposite is true. - wage differentials tend to be greater in countries with little or no FDI

The whole idea is ridiculous anyway. If it had any truth in at all then we would expect the capitalists in the advanced capitalist countries to behave quite differently towards their workforce. But they dont. They resist wage claims in the West for the same reason as they resist wage claims from workers in the South -it cuts into profit margins. They are hardly going to give workers in the the former a pay rise in the form of a "bribe" on the one hand and yet strive to hold down pay as far as possible on the other. That just makes no sense at all.

In short there is no mechanism that anyone can point to that demonstrates that objectively speaking the working class or some section of it in the advanced capitalist countries share with their capitalists in the spoils of so called "imperialist super-exploitation". This is sloppy emotive thinking that contributes nothing to understanding the world we live in. The fact that we now have state capitalist China pressing hard to knock the United States off its top position in the global economic league table (which is likely in the next few years) should be enough to dispel any doubts on this score and finally put paid to this Leninist worldview of "oppressor" and "oppressing" nations once and for all.

Capitalism is global and our class enemy is global too. The capitalists dont really think in these nationalist terms and they dont need to. Some of the richest of the world's super-rich come from the so called Third World. Carlos Slim is from Mexico, for instance

National liberation is a mugs game. It is a mirror image of the pathetic chauvinism displayed by some workers in the advanced capitalist countries who may actually believe all this crap about their standard of living depending on the West exploitating the South when, if anything, rates of exploitation may be technically higher in the West

If you think the answer lies in identifying with some so called Third country and in helping to give succour to its aim of so called "national liberation" - what the hell does that mean in todays world of globalised capitalism anyway?- then you are living in a fools paradise. Ironically , national liberation movements these days tend to be directed not so much against western capitalist powers but Third world capitalist governments. We have seen recently the emergence of yet another country in the form of Southern Sudan after decades of struggle against the regime in Khartoum

Marx's rallying call "workers of the world unite" means literally that. Anything that seelks to detract from that whether it be First world chauvinism or the national liberation/ bourgeois/racist outlook of so called Third Worldists has to be uncompromisingly opposed for the reactionary nonsense it is. Such things can only weaken and divide the working class and bind them to a course of action that is incapable of realising what it pathetically aspires to

[kurr]

They provide (or rather are capable of providing...there are many unions which are more-or-less worthless) a bulwark against attacks on the benefits workers have fought for. They provide a forum in which workers can strategize and share ideas about how to claw more benefits out of whatever business they're a part of.

Wrong. They are organized for attacks against benefits that the ruling class has already bought them off with.

[kurr]

Seriously? Well I'm glad black leaders in Africa never turned their backs(and guns) on the people to oppress the population in the interests of international capital. Oh wait, they did in just about every "national liberation" struggle. It has everything to do with class and the ability of the capitalist class to oppress, control, and DUPE the oppressed classes. That's not a white problem.

You don't fully understand the question of national liberation nor the context. When I meant national liberation, I meant the oppressed nations within the US (ie. Mexican/Latino, African, and Native) and specifically the working class of these oppressed nations.

So some leader of this or that movement in Africa is kind of irrelevant to what I'm saying. That said, these revolutionary movements were more in the step of the right direction than the White "left" and many tendencies on this forum can say for their entire history.

[Andropov]

Good question. I thought my mention of being in support of national liberation would hint at this but nevertheless.

Ireland was not historically part of the robbing of the world until maybe more recent times, as I'm sure you're aware. And even then, not even remotely close to the extent of Western Europe. It's England, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, etc and then the United States, Canada, and so on. That is what I'm basically getting at here. That's not to say that Irish immigrants to the US weren't eager to become "American" though.

The paper called "Level of Economic Development (http://www.irsp.ie/Background/theory/ecodevelopment.html)" from your party notes that modern day Ireland is still kept a level of dependency by the "advanced" capitalists countries. So it's a different situation than, say, in France. You know?
Yes I am aware of all this.
My point being is that it is not an ethnic division seeing as Irish people are white and European. Pigeon holing certain reactionary states into ethnic categories really isn't helping anyone.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you are white in somewhere other than Eastern Europe, does your 'white privilege' make you roughly equivalent to being in the bourgeoisie? How about Spain? No? Yeah, I thought so.

No, it doesn't make you "roughly equivalent" to the bourgeoisie. It's liberal claptrap confusing the effects of racism with class analysis, murking the latter beyond recognition.


Wrong. They are organized for attacks against benefits that the ruling class has already bought them off with.
Why don't admins do their job and restrict this third-worldist idiot?

[Rottenfruit]

If you are white in somewhere other than Eastern Europe, does your 'white privilege' make you roughly equivalent to being in the bourgeoisie?

The following statement was made to me by someone I know, after a brief exchange, in which I posed the above question to him. I'd like some analysis/insight from you RevLefters:

"being a beneficiary and reinforcer of a structure of power that oppresses a very large section of the populace? so [they are] roughly [equivalent]. i mean, not every bourgeois actively builds the structure of power that oppresses the proletariat, they just utilize class oppression for their own gain, same as white people use racial oppression for their gain."


No thats dumbass third world maoist crap

Ukraine has a lower gni then most of south america (avarage wage a year) and lower then some in Africa

See
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Ukr_world_GNI_percapita.PNG/800px-Ukr_world_GNI_percapita.PNG

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You don't fully understand the question of national liberation nor the context. When I meant national liberation, I meant the oppressed nations within the US (ie. Mexican/Latino, African, and Native) and specifically the working class of these oppressed nations.

So some leader of this or that movement in Africa is kind of irrelevant to what I'm saying. That said, these revolutionary movements were more in the step of the right direction than the White "left" and many tendencies on this forum can say for their entire history.

Putting a new group of bourgeois with a satisfactory skin color in place is a step in the right direction? Are you sure you're a communist?

The oppressed nations in the US still do the thing that you are accusing white workers of. Every day they go out and reproduce the society that oppresses them. That is to say, every day they go out and side with the interests of the ruling class and the counter-revolutionary elements of the white working class rather than themselves. It's a mistake to divide the class in this fashion, not because it's mean to white people but because it doesn't make any sense from a materialist standpoint. When Sakai talks about the overwhelming racism in the white working class, even during its most militant phases, he is absolutely correct, but this fact does not turn the racial minorities in this country into some sort of ultra-proletariat. The white workers turn against the black workers because capitalism forces workers to turn against the interests of other workers. Black workers turn against revolutionary black workers and side with the ruling class literally everyday, along with every other worker in this country.

[Rottenfruit]

I heard this claim made at an educational on Marxist economics given by Steve Bloom about 10 years ago. There's a problem of wage differences, but also who gets which jobs.

One source which backs this claim up: http://www.dadalos.org/int/menschenrechte/grundkurs_mr5/Apartheid/apartheid/bestandteile/wirtschaft.htm

Another: http://www.marxists.org/archive/padmore/1938/white-workers-black.htm

Another - "1946: African mine workers are paid twelve times less than their white counterparts and are forced to do the most dangerous jobs." http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/discrim/race_b_at_print.asp


YEAH in the year 1946 and even so what the fuck has that do with whites who live in povetry in ukraine? Are the whites in south africa somehow connected? Why does being white make you guilty of what white people across the world do?

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are white proletarians and bourgeoisie, there are black proletarians and bourgeoisie. This distinction is irrelevant to communists. Therein lies the problem with the White "left" and Marxism.I agree that this kind of formulation in the past has been a problem for marxism and anarchism. The crude versions of these arguments respectively are "When classes are liberated, then racism will be able to be destroyed for good" and "Race is a social construct and doesn't matter".

These are crude versions of the argument and in a sense both are true, but I think both miss the mark if not developed further. I think the thing that needs to be added, from my Marxist perspective, is that these kinds of oppression are rooted in the capitalist system and minority rule and inequality; they target one group, but also hold back the entire working class by adding repression and oppression on top of class oppression and dividing the working class. Racism targets specific groups in society but on the whole hurts all workers - same with sexism and homophobia and so on. Consequentially, we can not have a revolution without a working class that has already begun to attack these divides and built some organic trust and unity in class struggles. And it's that class liberation which can then institutionalize anti-racism and any gains made through struggle before revolution.

That's my perspective on this question and I think it could help frame my criticisms of some other arguments in your post.


The goal of multinational unity is a pure fairytale dream unattainable by the simple fact that the white working class has always historically identified with the ruling class. Not just in the US but in Europe as well. The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. This "identification" exists - but has also fluctuated and been challenged in the past. It is also constructed historically by ruling classes in the US. It was after a multiracial rebellion that segregation-type laws and special 2nd class status were applied. Why would colonial governments have to pass laws against inter-marriage of white and black servants, why would they have had to institute segregated servants quarters, if "whites naturally identify with white rulers over black people in similar positions?

I think what I might agree with in this argument is that a predominantly white Left can't "demand" or just "will" a united class struggle into being. One thing white leftists in the US need to do is to recognize a real and legitimate distrust among political blacks towards white-dominated groups. There are similar considerations in regards to other oppressions in society, particularly women. A political argument about unity can be made, but it can't really be demanded and an argument alone IMO won't cut it either, people also have to walk the walk and build real connections and struggles.


We can continue to say "but they are DUPED" till the cows come home but from the time that Europeans voluntarily engaged in the slaughter of Indigenous peoples not just here but all over the world to mass gatherings of White working class peoples at the hangings of Africans for pure entertainment value to modern lynch mobs, vigilantes, pigs, prison guards, defense workers, etc. The pathetic excuse of "duping" or "misinformation" can only go so far.Well this is a huge hodgepodge of interests from a Materialist's standpoint. "White Mobs" are literally dupes, but can't just be excused away. Cops, prison guards, Prosecutors, (historically) slave-catchers all have a material interest in maintaining the system which gives them a professional status (or can help them build a career as with Prosecutors and Politicians).

This distinction of "Who" is doing the lynching, clearing the American Indians from the land and so on is not to excuse or apologize for it, but to uncover what is material in origin and what is actually people adopting ruling class attitudes and ideas.

For example. In the frontier, poor whites had a material interest in clearing the west of American Indians because part of the social arrangement in the US was that since the US lacked labor and had tons of land that they couldn't really privatize and commodify, they allowed white servants to settle in the West in exchange for service. Now compare this to a white person who works in an office or warehouse in California. This person doesn't consider themselves racist (neither did the pro-genocide settler either really) but they think "crime has gotten out of control" and "black people cause more crime". Neither of these are really true (violent crime has been declining for years and years until the recession and the 2nd should be obvious) but growing up watching COPS and hearing the local media and politicians from both parties go on and on about "the crack epidemic" and so on and so this person buys into it. But they buy into it and they also wonder why there are no social services that are stable any more, he wonders why schools have gotten so bad, he worries about how his wages are depressed and he has no benefits. A huge part of all these concerns is really due to a shift in ruling class priorities and a campaign to attack (specifically black) workers and cut back on social and economic reforms.

Now comparatively, the settler is someone we'd never even care to try and convince or join us in a movement - settlers might individually come around on a moral basis, but on a material basis, they need the Calvary to protect the stolen land they have been given. In the 2nd case though - there isn't a material interest - in fact they are hurting their material interests by adopting these ideas and the policies that flow from them. We shouldn't specifically try and recruit racists away from racism on a one-on-one basis, but if there was a larger movement against the cops and prison system that was articulating these class concerns, then people like that might actually move more towards us and even towards anti-racist positions or even socialist ones.

Through the late 1960s and 1970s, these attitudes began changing... a little later they changed in regards to women as well. Why? Because there were movements, there were people challenging the status-quo and beginning to articulate an alternative to ruling class ideas about what's "natural" or "inevitable" in society. No amount of dressing in suits, hiring lawyers, or presenting the "respectability" of blacks in America that had been attempted before had that kind of impact - it was the act of regular people in large numbers and movements that made and fought for demands that broke things open and led to a whole generation of radicalization.

Of course this struggle was ground down and co-opted and has been reversed while a new system of racial control through the US prison system was erected and ideologically pushed for from the top of society. This isn't to say that the past struggle was meaningless - just to get to my original point. For those gains to have continued, the capitalist system, which inherently needs to divide workers and suppress dissent, on some level in various ways, needed to be removed to prevent the re-emergence of the same oppression in a new way (as happened) or new oppressions based on the need to divide the population. So I think in this historical example we can see how the struggle of the oppressed was needed in order to begin to build a general radical movement in the US of oppressed and non-oppressed, but that these gains ultimately can not be maintained within capitalism so the class and profit system had to be destroyed too for the movement to make further gains. I think the way the US dismantled the black and women's liberation movements shows this too: the middle-class parts of the movement were "co-opted" backed by the Democrats in running for local offices, given investments for black-neighborhood businesses; for the working class part of the movement, their demands against police violence were met with more violence, demands for better housing were met with the removal of the tax-base from black areas, their demands for jobs and better pay were met with de-industrialization and cuts to social programs. The needs of middle class blacks can be met to a large degree when push comes to shove... but when the black lib movement began taking on industrial employers, liberal politicians, landowners, inequality, these are things the capitalists won't give up as willingly as they'd give up all-white colleges.

[Unclebananahead]

I'm not a Maoist-third worldist (not even a Maoist). I don't accept the political line of, 'no white proletariat,' 'no first world proletariat,' 'joint dictatorship of proletarian nations,' 'global people's war against the first world,' 'the Plan De San Diego,' or any other such nonsense. I am a Leninist, with Trotskyist leanings (if you can believe that). I apologize if my original post was vague about this. I suppose I just assumed that some might remember previous posts I made in the past, and not assume that I'm 'twelve years of age' or 'brand new to Marxism.' I've posted on this site in regards to a number of topics, on a number of occasions, and as someone pointed out previously, I've been a member of the site for about three years now. Without putting too much emphasis on the point, I was hoping that this would have been a bit more perceptible, but I guess it wasn't. I admit that I don't typically post all that much on here.

Someone correctly pointed out that I posted regarding this topic before. The reason for this is that I really, really (did I mention *really*) want to understand this political line better, and why it's wrong. The reason for this is that in the local branch of the party I'm a member of (PSL), there's someone who adheres to these positions, more our less, and is very outspoken about it, and to be honest, it often makes me uncomfortable. I'm not particularly confident, and I sometimes get intimidated by other people with really strong contrasting opinions (I have a fairly severe anxiety/panic disorder). Often times this person puts forward an opinion which derives from an MTW/quasi-MTW political line, and I want to respond, but have trouble doing so. I want to be able to effectively articulate a countervailing opinion/analysis to these positions, but I think I may require some help. Hence my turning to revleft and posting in the learning section. I would like to think that if I educate myself well enough, I can better articulate my ideas, and point out what's wrong with MTW ideas more effectively.

Sorry again about the confusion.

[robbo203]

How about Spain? No? Yeah, I thought so.

No, it doesn't make you "roughly equivalent" to the bourgeoisie. It's liberal claptrap confusing the effects of racism with class analysis, murking the latter beyond recognition.


Why don't admins do their job and restrict this third-worldist idiot?

Im inclined to agree. I think this thread is at times skirting perilously close to a racist position and its very title is quite outrageous and an insult to workers like myself who happen to have a paler complexion and have to scrabble around week after to week to make ends meet and face the constant threat of having the pathetic little bit they've got taken away from them for good.

I oppose and despise racism from whatever source it arises from and whatever its intended target - be it white racism against blacks or black racism against whites. Even entertaining the idea, however hypothetically, that being white is equivalent to being a member of the capitalist class has got to be a sick joke

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

While I disagree with the main question of this thread and what Kurr is posting, it's not helpful for all the white people in here to get bent out of shape. Part of the reason these kinds of questions haven't been dealt with properly is because white people go batshit insane the second white hegemony is called into question. Just chill out.

[Igor]

While I disagree with the main question of this thread and what Kurr is posting, it's not helpful for all the white people in here to get bent out of shape. Part of the reason these kinds of questions haven't been dealt with properly is because white people go batshit insane the second white hegemony is called into question. Just chill out.

are you actually surprised working class white people (there's lots of us in this forums) get pissed off when somebody implies we're just fine and actually the real oppressor

because that pisses me off

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah it shouldn't you're on the internet not in front of a revolutionary tribunal. Having your privilege challenged is understandably difficult but the correct response is not foaming at the mouth and smashing your keyboard while you pound out a post describing how hard you've had it. You may as well tell us how many black friends you have or the time you gave spare change to a homeless black man on the street.

[Igor]

Yeah it shouldn't you're on the internet not in front of a revolutionary tribunal. Having your privilege challenged is understandably difficult but the correct response is not foaming at the mouth and smashing your keyboard while you pound out a post describing how hard you've had it. You may as well tell us how many black friends you have or the time you gave spare change to a homeless black man on the street.

Except that this thread wasn't about all that. I recognize my privilege, but this thread wasn't about that. This wasn't about white people telling everybody about racism and privilege and their effects, which would be dumb and happens a lot, this was thread was about questioning entirely the notion whether white people really are exploited after all. That's really basically MTW thinking and it's restricted for a reason, this thread has nothing to do with my white privilege. We have other nice threads about that.

Also nobody was "foaming at the mouth and smashing their keyboard" (maybe expect Rafiq I'd hate to see what his keyboard looks like), not everybody who disagrees with you does that and you're not the one cool and calm rational guy in the internet. Shocker!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No there is definitely an issue of white privilege at work in this thread. Read through it again and take note of all the overly defensive posts in here. They are the same kind of responses that arise when people start asking why white academics or white students are put into leadership positions in social movements by default. Even if the majority of the participants are non-white "How DARE you questions MY revolutionary commitment! This is reverse racism!" :rolleyes:

[robbo203]

Yeah it shouldn't you're on the internet not in front of a revolutionary tribunal. Having your privilege challenged is understandably difficult but the correct response is not foaming at the mouth and smashing your keyboard while you pound out a post describing how hard you've had it. You may as well tell us how many black friends you have or the time you gave spare change to a homeless black man on the street.

Your missing the point arent you? The title of the thread raises the hypothetical possibility that by virtue of my white skin I stand in an exploitative ("bourgeois") relationship vis a vis those of my fellow workers who happen to be black when I am myself the victim of a system of exploitation. Its is negating or dismissing out of hand my own experience as a worker who just happens to be white (for no fault of his own) and presumably the intention behind the thread's title is to suggest that in some sense we ought to feel guilty or culpable just because we happen to be white

Does that piss me off? You bet it does!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah, I'm not defending the idea that all whites are oppressors and I'm not defending Kurr's position, I'm attacking the white privilege that manifested itself in this thread despite being on the correct side of the issue.

[Igor]

No there is definitely an issue of white privilege at work in this thread. Read through it again and take note of all the overly defensive posts in here. They are the same kind of responses that arise when people start asking why white academics or white students are put into leadership positions in social movements by default. Even if the majority of the participants are non-white "How DARE you questions MY revolutionary commitment! This is reverse racism!" :rolleyes:

But this thread wasn't about black workers: it's about white workers. White workers are more than suitable to discuss their experience as a white worker, which the OP implies is comparable to white bougie experience what most of us find a completely ludicrous an idea. It's not really whitesplaining if the white experience is the actual subject at hand.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

But this thread wasn't about black workers: it's about white workers. White workers are more than suitable to discuss their experience as a white worker, which the OP implies is comparable to white bougie experience what most of us find a completely ludicrous an idea. It's not really whitesplaining if the white experience is the actual subject at hand.

Please, does this thread exist in a vacuum? To discuss the situation of a white worker it's sufficient to rely on a materialist explanation, not devolve into belly-aching where one contrasts his or her white working experience to that a black worker's, which is exactly what happened.

And the OP clarified his reasons for asking this question a few posts up btw.

[kurr]

Why don't admins do their job and restrict this third-worldist idiot?

Because I'm not a third-worldist, moron. "Third-Worldists" see absolutely no potential for a revolutionary force in the so-called "First World" and neglect the issue of Irish national liberation. If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you'd know this.

[kurr]

Yes I am aware of all this.
My point being is that it is not an ethnic division seeing as Irish people are white and European. Pigeon holing certain reactionary states into ethnic categories really isn't helping anyone.

What are you talking about, "ethnic categories"? I'm talking about White power here and it's historical manifestation through capitalism and colonialism. It has indisputably created the idea of "race" and created a pedestal for White westerners (basically those of the former Empires and current major imperialist powers).

I have already explained to how the Irish fit into what I'm saying. It's sort of like how Third-Worldists like to include Africans in the US as being totally bought off when Africans have to deal with daily killings by police, constant police containment and harassing, greater chance of ending up in prison, less chance of getting hired for a job, etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

Because I'm not a third-worldist, moron. "Third-Worldists" see absolutely no potential for a revolutionary force in the so-called "First World" and neglect the issue of Irish national liberation. If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you'd know this.
Saying you're not X does not necessarily mean you do not adovocate and uphold what is the basic tenet of said X.
And I'd know since I remember fairly well a prior discussion.


The working classes (mostly the WHITE working classes) in imperialist countries are benefactors of immense exploitation that they will never remotely come into contact with. The working classes (just like the Left in those respective countries) are social-chauvinists and opportunists. Just look at Apple's profit margins. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...s-expense.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/apple-profit-margins-rise-at-foxconn-s-expense.html) Look at that boom, dawg! Somehow those poor, oppressed workers in imperialist countries can still scrounge up a few bucks to purchase the latest trendy gadgets which is built upon by the blood, sweat, tears, and minerals of the people of Africa and Asia.


I'm not a Third Worldist because I do not see the people of the Third World as the only motive force for social revolution. I just do not see the White working class, who have benefited for hundreds of years from the slavery and colonialization of African, Asian, and Latin American peoples (both internationally and domestically), as the motive force for revolution in imperialist countries.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/infantile-flaming-t167163/index.html?t=167163

It is a staple of thirdworldism to assert the counter-revolutionary role of "white labour" in imperialist countries, splitting further the working class, an international class, and abandoning what is the only viable position with regard to issues of different nations and cultures - proletarian internationalism. And that is even not to mention the fact that you can somehow argue that white workers receive more value in wages than they produce! (which amounts to a total abandonment of Marxism)

You can try either to re-define thirdworldism or sugarcoat your own assertions, but I think all is clear.

So, how about a some ideas on this from admins?

[kurr]

Saying you're not X does not necessarily mean you do not adovocate and uphold what is the basic tenet of said X.
And I'd know since I remember fairly well a prior discussion.

Pretty much the only thing I share with Third Worldists is the understanding that the most oppressed make revolution and the historical legacy of the White working class to identify with the ruling class. That's about it.



It is a staple of thirdworldism to assert the counter-revolutionary role of "white labour" in imperialist countries, splitting further the working class, an international class, and abandoning what is the only viable position with regard to issues of different nations and cultures - proletarian internationalism. And that is even not to mention the fact that you can somehow argue that white workers receive more value in wages than they produce! (which amounts to a total abandonment of Marxism)

I'm not a Marxist, bro and for some reason you think I'm still talking about the "labor aristocracy" theory proposed by Lenin which I'm not.

As I've noted, Marx did point out that the wage workers of that time (i.e. White Europeans) lived on a pedestal due to colonialism. Engles later noted in his letters that the English working class was becoming more bourgeois (Engels letter to Marx October 7th 1858) and that there was no real proletarian movement in Britain (Engels letter to Bebel August 30 1883). Hmm.. Do they sound like a bunch of Third-Worldists?

But, guys, they said "Workers of the world unite" so they didn't, like, mean it or anything..


You can try either to re-define thirdworldism or sugarcoat your own assertions, but I think all is clear.

Jesus christ how theoretically one dimensional you are. I've already said that I view oppressed nations as the motive force for revolution in a country like the US. How in the hell is that "Third Worldism"? I'm not advocating JDPON or anything like that.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What are you talking about, "ethnic categories"? I'm talking about White power here and it's historical manifestation through capitalism and colonialism. It has indisputably created the idea of "race" and created a pedestal for White westerners (basically those of the former Empires and current major imperialist powers).

I have already explained to how the Irish fit into what I'm saying. It's sort of like how Third-Worldists like to include Africans in the US as being totally bought off when Africans have to deal with daily killings by police, constant police containment and harassing, greater chance of ending up in prison, less chance of getting hired for a job, etc.

You act as if white power is of more concern than capitalism. Guess what capitalism can deliver on anti-racism if it become necessary for it's survival at some point. What it can't deliver on is emancipation. You're arguing for reforms not communism.

[kurr]

You act as if white power is of more concern than capitalism. Guess what capitalism can deliver on anti-racism if it become necessary for it's survival at some point. What it can't deliver on is emancipation. You're arguing for reforms not communism.

White power and the world capitalist system go hand in hand, guy. That's what I'm trying to say. "Anti-racism" as an issue is too limiting and a dead end.

How in the hell am I arguing for reforms? If anything the White working class is always arguing for reforms. It's pure fantasy that they would be more susceptible to revolutionary ideas than reforming capitalism. I'm saying as a whole.

My politics can be summed with the term: ANTI-COLONIAL

[kurr]

Not at all, you can't help what skin, or class for that matter, you're born into. If you're really a Communist, one thinks you would know that. It's about uniting, not dividing.

You definitely cannot help what you're born into but you can for sure help with the understanding that the world has been divided ever since the advent of Capitalism between those who benefit and those who suffer. White Communists should join under the working class leadership of those belonging to oppressed nations.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

White power and the world capitalist system go hand in hand, guy. That's what I'm trying to say. "Anti-racism" as an issue is too limiting and a dead end.

How in the hell am I arguing for reforms? If anything the White working class is always arguing for reforms. It's pure fantasy that they would be more susceptible to revolutionary ideas than reforming capitalism. I'm saying as a whole.

My politics can be summed with the term: ANTI-COLONIAL

Capitalism doesn't give a fuck about skin color, how do you account for the non-white bourgeoisie? You do in fact sound like a third worldist, but one severely lacking in education :lol:. I'm sure tomorrow if all the whites disappear capitalism will collapse instead of new groups taking their place.

You politics can be summed up as NON-EXISTENT

[kurr]

Capitalism doesn't give a fuck about skin color, how do you account for the non-white bourgeoisie? You do in fact sound like a third worldist, but one severely lacking in education

The non-white members of the ruling class have little relevance other than that they are Uncle Tom's of the highest order. As robbo203 mentioned earlier (and his reply I'll get to at some point today) about Slim from Mexico. Slim doesn't call the shots in Mexico no matter how wealthy he is and no matter how much he'd like to so it's a poor example.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Haha ok, so please humor me, what happens if every single white person disappears tonight. What does the world look like tomorrow?

[kurr]

Haha ok, so please humor me, what happens if every single white person disappears tonight. What does the world look like tomorrow?

It's not even worth a second of my time to even consider this idiotic notion that will never, ever come into fruition.

Moving on...

[Ostrinski]

Kill all white people

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wrong. They are organized for attacks against benefits that the ruling class has already bought them off with.

Right, the benefits that the ruling class "bought them off with".

I'm pretty sure that the experience of the 1970's conclusively proved this BS wrong in multiple Western countries, in which capital's pact with labor descended into a nightmare, which ultimately culminated in Reaganism/Thatcherism. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

As I've noted, Marx did point out that the wage workers of that time (i.e. White Europeans) lived on a pedestal due to colonialism. Engles later noted in his letters that the English working class was becoming more bourgeois (Engels letter to Marx October 7th 1858) and that there was no real proletarian movement in Britain (Engels letter to Bebel August 30 1883). Hmm.. Do they sound like a bunch of Third-Worldists?

I remember Marx wrote back to Engels something along the lines of "what the fuck are you talking about Engels shut up send more money thanks"

[kurr]

I'm pretty sure that the experience of the 1970's conclusively proved this BS wrong in multiple Western countries, in which capital's pact with labor descended into a nightmare, which ultimately culminated in Reaganism/Thatcherism. :rolleyes:

If this were remotely true, Reagan wouldn't still be revered like he still is these days.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You don't fully understand the question of national liberation nor the context. When I meant national liberation, I meant the oppressed nations within the US (ie. Mexican/Latino, African, and Native) and specifically the working class of these oppressed nations.

So some leader of this or that movement in Africa is kind of irrelevant to what I'm saying. That said, these revolutionary movements were more in the step of the right direction than the White "left" and many tendencies on this forum can say for their entire history.

And we never had/have our Uncle Tom's? Again, what you're trying to attribute to white workers is not a problem solely held by white workers and has everything to do with "being duped" and not just in America.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If this were remotely true, Reagan wouldn't still be revered like he still is these days.

Now who's been duped. Who the hell reveres Reagan except for GOP ideologues and some conservative independents these days? :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, I just remembered this graphic that I posted on this site a while back, related to my post vis-a-vis the 1970's:

https://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html

So much for the so-called "buy off" to the fat bloated labor aristocrats!

[Rottenfruit]

While I disagree with the main question of this thread and what Kurr is posting, it's not helpful for all the white people in here to get bent out of shape. Part of the reason these kinds of questions haven't been dealt with properly is because white people go batshit insane the second white hegemony is called into question. Just chill out.
AS does any group if i's about them, make a topic like this on a forum where the majority is black or asian and everybody gets angry

[Radikal]

I am White and Native American, and I may harbor some resentment towards Whites sometimes, but there is no reason to assume that being White makes you bourgeois, I've gone hungry before, there are plenty of poor Whites. In Western Europe, the majority are White, and there are still poor people. Not saying race don't play into it, it definitely does, but not as much as some people say.

[black magick hustla]

there is no "colonialism" today as in the early 20th century understanding of the word. if that was the case, it would be as simple as people in third world overthrowing their "comprador bourgeosie" or whatever. however, almost every national liberation movement has been more or less a failure in ridding those places out of backwardness and poverty. while 1960s new left pep talk might make some people live vicariously through the violence of the third world, the truth is that there needs to be something else than galvanizing brown people against white people. imperialism is not a matter of empires vs colonies, but rather, it is a world system that contaminates every corner of the planet

[black magick hustla]

The non-white members of the ruling class have little relevance other than that they are Uncle Tom's of the highest order. As robbo203 mentioned earlier (and his reply I'll get to at some point today) about Slim from Mexico. Slim doesn't call the shots in Mexico no matter how wealthy he is and no matter how much he'd like to so it's a poor example.

what. of course slim doesn't call the shots in the same way bill gates doesn't call the shots, but that is not how the bourgeosie as a class exerts its power, and it is pretty laughable that you think there aren't powerful, and influential brown people in mexico, its actually really racist and ignorant.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Im inclined to agree. I think this thread is at times skirting perilously close to a racist position and its very title is quite outrageous and an insult to workers like myself who happen to have a paler complexion and have to scrabble around week after to week to make ends meet and face the constant threat of having the pathetic little bit they've got taken away from them for good.

I oppose and despise racism from whatever source it arises from and whatever its intended target - be it white racism against blacks or black racism against whites. Even entertaining the idea, however hypothetically, that being white is equivalent to being a member of the capitalist class has got to be a sick joke


are you actually surprised working class white people (there's lots of us in this forums) get pissed off when somebody implies we're just fine and actually the real oppressor

because that pisses me off

I'm only quoting these specific posts because they were recent, but I'm addressing some comments more generally made by many comrades in this thread. So sorry, I don't mean to single-out these comrades specifically - in fact I agree with what they are saying on a level - but I want to try and make a more general argument about this thread. While the attitude in society and often reflected in the broad left that "all whites" "all men" or "all heterosexuals" are "part of the problem" isn't productive from a revolutionary perspective, materially or historically true, I think in general people in this thread who are offended by the suggestion need to "get over it" in terms of a knee-jerk sort of emotional reaction.

1. There is no such thing as black anti-white racism... there IS, however, resentment which sometimes leads to a kind of defensive bigotry. This goes for most divisions like racism in our society. Speaking of racism/sexism in abstract terms ("oh sure there's structural racism, but then there's the bad attitudes of some whites and also the bad attitudes of some blacks which is just as bad but not as prevalent") is like speaking of violence in abstract terms ("sure the police were heavy-handed responding to that strike, but so were the strikers").

Why is this important? Because the STRUCTURAL racism is what holds in and helps spread the daily casual racist attitudes... or sexist or homophobic or so on. Without the structural element, then there would be nothing but custom to keep these ideas going and theoretically, we could get rid of racism or sexist attitudes through "correcting bad ideas". But then where does so-called feminist anti-male attitudes or black anti-white "racism" come from (where it does actually exist, because it's exaggerated in many ways by the mainstream in order to dilute arguments about oppression and "muddy the waters" in discussion of these problems... "oh well everyone's equally racist, if blacks face racism, it's just because they are numerically small, if things were reversed then it'd be the same for whites")? These attitudes are a RESPONCE to black/female/sexual-minority oppression in society. So how do we overcome these attitudes? By fighting against racism and sexism and so on! "Anti-white racism" or anti-male sexism are non-things... they don't have much of a real impact and they do not exist without the primary systemic oppression of blacks and women in the first place.

2. The attitude that X group is "part of the problem" IS a real barrier to building both class fight-back and unity, but also in fighting against oppression. This is because it misses the mark in the root of oppression and therefore can't do anything but rage at the tree and swat at the leaves. But a male revolutionary is never going to convince a woman who blames sexism on an all-male patriarchy of the need for class-unity to fight against oppression or the whole system through argument. "Let me explain to you why you are wrong in thinking that men don't think women can think for themselves".

So it's an issue on a practical level much like trying to link radical politics to economic struggles for places like the US where radicalism has been forcibly divorced from the struggles of the working class. Trust has to be built organically. Arguments and essays will go so far in helping attract people who are already kind of thinking along similar lines, but it will take something more concrete before inroads are made into general attitudes among people. Until we can build struggles that show how revolutionary ideas can help workers win in the community or on the job, then people will mostly think at first: "socialism/anarchism, aren't they kinda old ideas from a different time?". And until there are multiracial class struggles, then most oppressed communities will have skepticism towards groups full of mostly white hetero males and think, "what's the difference between these white people telling me things and any other group of white people who think they know better" or "well they'll help out for a while, but when things get serious where will they be?"

So in short, while I agree with the political arguments made by many here, I think folks need to up their game on these issues and bring a more nuanced approach to some of these questions. Blaming non-specifically oppressed workers for the oppression of other groups of workers is a barrier to the project of working class self-emancipation, but the source of these attitudes is not necissarily a barrier. Some of these attitudes come from just a kind of misanthropy and cynicism and that probably won't lead someone to positive developments and also probably prevents them from organizing on that basis anyway, so they are sort of a non-issue. For other individuals and tendencies however, these attitudes come from a desire to fight against oppression and so we should actually want to win people over to our analysis and strategies for fighting oppression and ultimately working class revolution.

[robbo203]

1. There is no such thing as black anti-white racism... there IS, however, resentment which sometimes leads to a kind of defensive bigotry. This goes for most divisions like racism in our society. Speaking of racism/sexism in abstract terms ("oh sure there's structural racism, but then there's the bad attitudes of some whites and also the bad attitudes of some blacks which is just as bad but not as prevalent") is like speaking of violence in abstract terms ("sure the police were heavy-handed responding to that strike, but so were the strikers").

I think this is pedantic and nitpicking. Of course there is such a thing as black anti-white racism just as there is white anti-black racism. Both kinds of racism need to be vigorously opposed. One could conceivably say black racism is perhaps "understandable" as a reaction to white racism as a more structurally grounded phenomenon at least in, say, western societies - which is what I think you are trying to say - but it is still racism - is it not? - and it is still no less excusable for that.

Thus talking in terms of "white power" when what we have is a society in which power is assymetrically distributed according to class is clearly racist. Its making an unwarranted generalisation about all whites which is plainly false. Ironically even the claimn that there is no such thing as black anti-white racism is likewise racist since it entertains the tacit assumption that all blacks simply by virtue of being black are somehow immune to that peculiar defect in the human personality called racist thinking. I hold to the contrary that race is no barrier to being racist

Your analogy with violence committed by the cops is inept. Are you saying that one cannot even the recognise the response of the strikers to heavy handed policing as being violent too, let alone inadvisable. You might say such counter violence is justifed but you are hardly thereby saying that it is not violent. By the same token you might say black racism is "justified" but you could hardly deny that it is black racism

I would say that it is not ever justified any more than white racism is - and this is where your analogy breaks down completely. Racism of whatever kind draws attention away from the fundamental dividing line in capitalist society which is class - not nations or so called races (in my book there is only one race, the human race)

Anyone who inadvertently or otherwise advocates racism - whether it be white racism, black racism or turquoise racism for that matter -is a racist and needs to be exposed for what he or she is

[NewLeft]

Anyone who inadvertently or otherwise advocates racism - whether it be white racism, black racism or turquoise racism for that matter -is a racist and needs to be exposed for what he or she is
how can there even be turquoise racism.. well yes we all use categorical thinking, but even that alone doesn't lead to racism.

[Silvr]

Thus talking in terms of "white power" when what we have is a society in which power is assymetrically distributed according to class is clearly racist.

Way to undermine your entire point when you say things like this. I mean, talking about white power isn't a class based analysis, but to say that its "clearly racist" is absurd, and it makes you look like a complete tool.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think this is pedantic and nitpicking.I was speaking generally about some of the ways arguments have been expressed in this thread, not you specifically - I chose that quote because of the abstract equivalency of racism.


Of course there is such a thing as black anti-white racism just as there is white anti-black racism.To put aside the semantic argument right off the bat: yes black people can stereotype and hate or blame all white people. However, this is "racism" on an inter-personal level for the most part and not structural. The ruling class isn't specifically targeting whites for anything and then pitting black workers against whites. Black people can adopt anti-immigrant racism and all sorts of other things, but there is no Racism proper against whites for being whites in a way that is tied to the capitalist system. Anti-black racism in the US however, is very deliberately connected to the way class works in the US as religious divisions are in India or what have you.

Again this is important because if racism is just bad attitudes directed to any group (what I prefer to call bigotry for clarification) then you can reform oppression away or the way to tackle racism or sexism is by changing people's attitudes. However the situation in the US where most white people DON'T consider themselves "racist" and actually marginalize OVERT induvidual racism - yet structural racism is as strong as in Jim-Crow, shows the flaws in mistaking individual bigotry in attitudes or action for a system of racial control (as a means to control all non-rulers in society): racism.


Both kinds of racism need to be vigorously opposed. One could conceivably say black racism is perhaps "understandable" as a reaction to white racism as a more structurally grounded phenomenon at least in, say, western societies - which is what I think you are trying to say - but it is still racism - is it not? - and it is still no less excusable for that. The main problem with these attitudes are that they reinforce rather than overcome racial or sexual divisions in society, they are a BARRIER for people who want to end racism much like other liberal ideas are a barrier both (from our perspective) for the larger self-emancipatory project and just the winning of the reforms in of themselves.

There is NO WAY, however, for anti-male feminism or anti-white sentiments among oppressed ethnic groups to actually have much of a material impact outside of diverting movements against oppression. First of all, economically, blacks can not oppress whites, numerically they can't, and US society is so segregated that even if 25% of blacks hated all whites, it would literally NEVER impact the vast majority of white people.


Thus talking in terms of "white power" when what we have is a society in which power is assymetrically distributed according to class is clearly racist. Its making an unwarranted generalisation about all whites which is plainly false. Ironically even the claimn that there is no such thing as black anti-white racism is likewise racist since it entertains the tacit assumption that all blacks simply by virtue of being black are somehow immune to that peculiar defect in the human personality called racist thinking. I hold to the contrary that race is no barrier to being racistOh, so I'm racist - after not calling you a racist, this is your response:rolleyes:.

Again, as I said above, individually black people can think anything - a black woman might think she can fly to the moon in a shoe... but does this matter materially in the larger social sense? I am not speaking of "attitudes" because they are the OUTCOME of structrual racism, not the cause. There's no Emos loosing access education systematically, targeted by police, loosing voting rights, just because tons of people loathe Emos. People hate rich people more than openly hate black people - rich people aren't "oppressed" though.


I would say that it is not ever justified any more than white racism is - and this is where your analogy breaks down completely. Racism of whatever kind draws attention away from the fundamental dividing line in capitalist society which is class - not nations or so called races (in my book there is only one race, the human race)

Anyone who inadvertently or otherwise advocates racism - whether it be white racism, black racism or turquoise racism for that matter -is a racist and needs to be exposed for what he or she is

The STRUCTURES of racism are what hold attitudes in place in society and create both white support of racist institutions, practices, and arguments as well as create the material basis for why the attitude among some of the oppressed is to blame all non-oppressed people no matter what their position is in society.

To argue that both anti-black and anti-white attitudes need to be fought against equally is idealist and impossible. Racism can not be lessened through "education" and "propaganda" - we can convince individuals that way, but it's a loosing situation as long as the material roots are left alone because as many people that we can convince, more people will hear politicians, see the stream of black people being locked up and conclude, well if they are all being arrested and all pleading guilty, maybe there is something wrong with black people. It would be like trying to convince people not to be racist through argument during Jim-Crow... we can argue that, but ruling class hegemony argues countless times a day that "things are as they are and can't change and if we tried, it'd be worse". Ultimately it took struggle and people organizing an alternative to the ruling myths of the day to convince large chunks of people to change their attitudes.

So by all means we should argue against these ideas and especially when they take the form of strategy or organization - but they should be argued against on the basis that they do not accurately show how racism works in society (its connection to class rule), blames large numbers of people who will actually be needed as allies to liberation struggles, and reinforces the divides that keep us all weak. We can argue that because the audience for some of these attitudes is actually OUR AUDIENCE: people who want to see the end of inequality and oppression in society. However, organized white racists... do they want the same things, are they part of our audience? No they are opposed to our aims and don't want to see regular people run society, they want to uphold a specific and already existing social order (or reinforce it if they feel the country "doesn't go far enough").

There is no material equivalency between someone who hates blacks and supports prisons and tougher police and getting rid of welfare to "put them in their place" on the one hand, and on the other someone who is so sick of seeing mistreatment by police, inequality on the job and in hosing, lack of access to the basic bourgeois rights most people get to some degree and resents or blames all whites for this.

To argue that these attitudes are equivalent in the context of material inequality, actually reinforces reactionary ideas such as the US being "color-blind" and the existence of "reverse-racism" and so on. It also causes radicals to tail liberals since the liberal answers to racism almost always (these days) skirt the issue of racism as systemic (connected to the whole system) and view institutional racism as "bad policies" or "oversight" or "bad politicians" and most of all "bad individuals".

The argument I'm making is one that I think the US revolutionary left had to learn for itself in the early 20th century. The arguments in the US CP over "reverse chauvinism" are a precursor to contemporary arguments by conservatives of "reverse racism" and to it's credit that's one thing the CP hit on the head. The argument you seem to be making is the one put forward by the left-wing anti-racists in the US Socialist Party and as much as I admire Debs in a lot of ways, he was dead wrong in arguing that "socialists have nothing special to offer black people, they will be liberated when the class is liberated". As long as the class is majorly divided by race or gender the working class will never achieve self-emancipation... if whites and blacks aren't able to fight and begin to overcome these things then neither can overcome ruling class rule. On the flip side, if the struggles against oppression don't fight on a class basis, then they will also be less effective and be driven back as the fates of the liberation movements in the US of the 60s and 70s clearly show.

[robbo203]

how can there even be turquoise racism.. well yes we all use categorical thinking, but even that alone doesn't lead to racism.

:confused: ?? Its a pisstake on racism - meaning colour/race is irrelevant as far as I am concerned

[robbo203]

Way to undermine your entire point when you say things like this. I mean, talking about white power isn't a class based analysis, but to say that its "clearly racist" is absurd, and it makes you look like a complete tool.


I dont agree. I think it is most certainly racist and it is to give credence to those far right nutjobs who seek to make this sort of nonsnese a reality in their twisted little minds. To talk of "whites" holding power as a generalisation is utter crap and you are surely not trying to tell me here that you go along with sort of crap?

[Igor]

I dont agree. I think it is most certainly racist and it is to give credence to those far right nutjobs who seek to make this sort of nonsnese a reality in their twisted little minds. To talk of "whites" holding power as a generalisation is utter crap and you are surely not trying to tell me here that you go along with sort of crap?

To deny the notion that whites as a group hold power is stupid and flies directly to the face of reality. Rich black people don't exactly live a hard knock life but even they are very underrepresented in political and business life. Likewise, the existence of women like Queen Elizabeth and Hillary Clinton doesn't mean men as a group don't hold power - this doesn't mean every man or every white person is in some kind of powerful position. But as a group, they are, this should be fairly obvious when you look at pretty much any powerful institution in the United States or another similarly multicultural yet white-dominated society. This is very important to realize, just going "guys race doesn't matter guys all racism is equally bad" is just stupid, society is major league skewed in favour of white people. Far right nutjobs don't try to make that a reality, they're trying to enforce and conserve that reality.

So yeah, I go along with that sort of crap.

[Positivist]

I recognize that racism is built into the structure of capitalism, especially int the United States these days, but I don't know what you mean by "white people as a group hold power" and I really don't by into white privilige. I mean quality of life tends to be better for whites than for blacks because of the racist structures in place but I don't know if this is really too much of a privilige. The only real privilige for whites is the absence of the oppression that is inflicted upon blacks.

[Igor]

The only real privilige for whites is the absence of the oppression that is inflicted upon blacks.

if you don't think that's one hell of a privilege then i don't really know what to say at this point

[NewLeft]

people on this forum seem to be more opposed to the term "white privilege" than what it means

[Igor]

people on this forum seem to be more opposed to the term "white privilege" than what it means

And what is there to be opposed? By the merit of being born into the race that's fairly artificially considered the norm in the society, non-Hispanic whites are more likely to be more educated, be wealthier, more likely to be hired to a job, less likely to be stopped by cops and more likely to receive lighter punishments than a Hispanic or black individual from same circumstances. Racial minorities are less likely to rise to leadership positions in politics or economy, again, even if they came from fairly similar circumstances. To white people, race is never just actually discussed or brought up, but you can't really be influential and black without your race being brought up. These are all examples of privilege, things white people get for being white.

People are opposed to the term because it implies they too benefit from the system of institutionalized racism, like they do. Some more, some less, of course, but just the merit of being white gives you certain perks other people are a lot less likely to get. For a white socialist, that isn't exactly a comfortable thought, so you oppose the term, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is.

[robbo203]

I was speaking generally about some of the ways arguments have been expressed in this thread, not you specifically - I chose that quote because of the abstract equivalency of racism.

To put aside the semantic argument right off the bat: yes black people can stereotype and hate or blame all white people. However, this is "racism" on an inter-personal level for the most part and not structural.

Right - this effectively ends the argument because now you are agreeing that you can indeed have "black anti-white racism" quite contrary to what you earlier said "There is no such thing as black anti-white racism". The fact that it is "inter personal"and not structural (although thatin itself is open to question and depends very much on context) is neither here nor there: IT IS STILL RACISM!





The ruling class isn't specifically targeting whites for anything and then pitting black workers against whites. Black people can adopt anti-immigrant racism and all sorts of other things, but there is no Racism proper against whites for being whites in a way that is tied to the capitalist system. Anti-black racism in the US however, is very deliberately connected to the way class works in the US as religious divisions are in India or what have you.


Whats with this "racism proper"? Racism is racism is racism. You are employing weasel words her, Jimmie. If you what you are trying to say is that there are different material bases for different kinds of racism then, yes, I wouldnt disagree with you. But that doesnt make what we are talking about any the less racist.

Racism is the unwarranted generalisationn or inference that is applied to a group of people simply on the basis of their so called race or some alleged racial market such as skin -colour and is usually couched in derogatory or accusatory terms. For instance what lies behind the crass expression
"white power" is the inference that people of pale complexion as whole are somehow responble or culpable for the material disadvantages suffered by black people as a whole. Thats utter nonsense and we both know it.

Statistically , it is quite true that blacks are on average materrally disadvantaged by comparison with their white counterparts and I am not in the least trying to deny this or that fact that there is such a thing as structura or institutional racism. What I object to rather is the utterly vacuous and stupid extension of culpability to "white people" as a whole as if there were some kind of meaningfiul sociological explanation bnegind this idiotic claim. There is none Point is - you cannot just generalise in this way which is precisely what racists of all stripes are wont to do: there are poor white workers and rich blacks just as there are rich whites and poor blacks. While the latter case. I agree, is more reflective of the reality we live in we need to go beyond the useless racist explanation that is all down to "white power"




Again this is important because if racism is just bad attitudes directed to any group (what I prefer to call bigotry for clarification) then you can reform oppression away or the way to tackle racism or sexism is by changing people's attitudes.

Strawman argument. Nobody is saying racism can only take the form of "bad attudes" but bad attitudes in this instance are unequivocally still a case of racism





There is NO WAY, however, for anti-male feminism or anti-white sentiments among oppressed ethnic groups to actually have much of a material impact outside of diverting movements against oppression. First of all, economically, blacks can not oppress whites, numerically they can't, and US society is so segregated that even if 25% of blacks hated all whites, it would literally NEVER impact the vast majority of white people.

What on earth are you saying here Juimmy? That whites as a whole can oppress blacks as a whole but it can never be the other a way round because blacks are a small minority. That is a terriblly sloppy argument and you must surely see this. You have to disaggregate the notion of oppression. Its utterly meaningless to talk of "whites as a whole" oppressing or of " blacks as a whole" being oppressed. There are some whites who oppress just as there are some blacks who oppress. While on average we can talk about more whites doing the oppressing than blacks - making due allowance for differences in population size - it is also true that some blacks doing the oppressing. There are some pretty nasty oppressive regimes in parts of Africa for instance and I can think of that homophobic scumbag Mugabe for one. One of his pals is or was a white scumbag called Nicholaas van Hoogstraten (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_van_Hoogstraten) who made his fortune as a slum landlord. When it comes to ripping off the workers capitalism can quite often be colour blind

Point is oppression is carried out by specific concrete individuals not abstract notions like the "white popualtion as a whole" which has no meaningful sociological purchase on the reality its seeks to shed light on






Oh, so I'm racist - after not calling you a racist, this is your response:rolleyes:.



No, I dont say toy are a racist but I do think some of the ideas you hold inadvertently lend thensleves to racist-type interpretations





Again, as I said above, individually black people can think anything - a black woman might think she can fly to the moon in a shoe... but does this matter materially in the larger social sense? I am not speaking of "attitudes" because they are the OUTCOME of structrual racism, not the cause.

No this far too simplistic and reductionist . Structural racism, as well as giving rise to racist attitudes, is constantly nourished by racist attitudes






The STRUCTURES of racism are what hold attitudes in place in society and create both white support of racist institutions, practices, and arguments as well as create the material basis for why the attitude among some of the oppressed is to blame all non-oppressed people no matter what their position is in society.


What? Are you suggesting white workers are not oppressed?



To argue that both anti-black and anti-white attitudes need to be fought against equally is idealist and impossible. Racism can not be lessened through "education" and "propaganda" - we can convince individuals that way, but it's a loosing situation as long as the material roots are left alone


What are you trying to say here? How is it "idealist" to oppose anti-black and anti-white attitudes equally. I regard any form of racism as objectionable and will oppose it wherever it crops up.

I suppose what youmight mean is that there is more racism directed against blacks than against whites and so, as a matter of empirical fact, you will find yourself in effect countering white racism against blacks more often than the converse. Well thats fair enough as an empirocal claim although I am not sure if that is exactly what you mean. If you mean like some guilt stricken white liberal we have to soft peddle of downplay black racism for fear of offending our fellow workers who happen to be black - and extremely patronising position to take in my view - then Im afraid your approach is doomed to failure from the start. It wont do anything to addresss bigotry expressed by those white workers towards blacks and will make no inroads in getting the former to abandon their bigoted views if you do not come acorss as not even handded in your condemnantion of racism .

See, its the racists also that you have to address in tackling racism - not just the victims of racism and personally I think this where many on the Left dont real have any answer. They are reduced to a position of moralistic posturing which is not going to cur any ice to a young racist thug who thinlks the left does not mind racism so long as it expressed by a black worker . Its little wonder that racism is on the rise in many parts of Europe and for all I know the States as well. A loy of the constituency of racist groups are poor whites who would consider it to be a complete joke to think they are oppressing blacks . From their point of view , utterly twisted though it may be , quite the opposite is true. These are the kinds of thought processes you have to deal with, not just brush under the carpet, if you want to serriously address racism



So by all means we should argue against these ideas and especially when they take the form of strategy or organization - but they should be argued against on the basis that they do not accurately show how racism works in society (its connection to class rule), blames large numbers of people who will actually be needed as allies to liberation struggles, and reinforces the divides that keep us all weak. We can argue that because the audience for some of these attitudes is actually OUR AUDIENCE: people who want to see the end of inequality and oppression in society. However, organized white racists... do they want the same things, are they part of our audience? No they are opposed to our aims and don't want to see regular people run society, they want to uphold a specific and already existing social order (or reinforce it if they feel the country "doesn't go far enough").

A lot of people are opposed to "our aim" . not just racists. But you dont want to "talk to racists" . Fine - so what can then you about the racism they exhibit? You can confront them in the street and come to blows with them but thats not going to make then change their minds, is it? This is the problem with what I call kneejerk leftism. Many of these young racist thugs might actually get a quite a kick from street rioghting and you are feeding their habit (I say "you" in general, I dont know your actual view on this matter , Jimmy)

I would say even racists needs to be spoken to somehow and most certainly the larger section of the population who are pwerhaps semi racist and proine to certain implictly racist ways of thinking. Reaching these people absolutely requires one to be - and to be seen to be - uncompromisingly even handed in your condemnation of racism of any kind - whether it be white racism,. black racism or any other kind of racism



There is no material equivalency between someone who hates blacks and supports prisons and tougher police and getting rid of welfare to "put them in their place" on the one hand, and on the other someone who is so sick of seeing mistreatment by police, inequality on the job and in hosing, lack of access to the basic bourgeois rights most people get to some degree and resents or blames all whites for this.


Yes I agree there is no "material equivalency" but once again that is not the point. The point is how do you respond to someone like this whe blames "all whites" for his or her predicament? I tell you straightoff how I would respond. I would say to this individual "dont be such a plonker. It is not a case of all whites being to blame for your situation" I wouldnt pull my punches like some wet liberal for fear of causing offence by calling into question this person's racist prejudices, The point being that person would blaming his or her situation on something that is not actually the cause of it in any meaningful sense. Such prejudices are misdiirect and thus therefore impotent as an attmpet to get something done about that situation



The argument I'm making is one that I think the US revolutionary left had to learn for itself in the early 20th century. The arguments in the US CP over "reverse chauvinism" are a precursor to contemporary arguments by conservatives of "reverse racism" and to it's credit that's one thing the CP hit on the head. The argument you seem to be making is the one put forward by the left-wing anti-racists in the US Socialist Party and as much as I admire Debs in a lot of ways, he was dead wrong in arguing that "socialists have nothing special to offer black people, they will be liberated when the class is liberated". As long as the class is majorly divided by race or gender the working class will never achieve self-emancipation... if whites and blacks aren't able to fight and begin to overcome these things then neither can overcome ruling class rule. On the flip side, if the struggles against oppression don't fight on a class basis, then they will also be less effective and be driven back as the fates of the liberation movements in the US of the 60s and 70s clearly show.

Again this is one big strawman argument. Of course anti racism must be part and parcel of a socialist outlook. That goes without saying. It als ogoes without saying that black workers tend to be more the victim of racism than white workers and so in that limited sense only will have something more to gain from socialism than pergpas the average white worker if one can even talk in these terms

But this is not what we are arguing about it - is it? We are arguing abouyt 2 things

1) what to do about the tendency among some of the victims of white racism against blacks to blame white people in general? This is false and misdirects energies into a completely wrong solutions.

2) what to do about the tendency among some some whites to blame blacks or immigrants for the the problems they face. This too is false and misdirects energies into a completely wrong solutions

Racism, in short is no solution the problems facing workers whether they be black or white. But in order get that message across effectively we have to be even handed in opposing racism everywhere it crops up . If in practice that means we are mainly opposing white racism against black workers then so be it - if that is how it is that is how it is. But you dont start out with some kind of abstract principle of favouring the struggfle against white raciism against black racism. What proportion foers to what is something that depends on circumstances on the ground. But if in practice we mainly find ourselves having to combat white racism this should be on the grounds that no form of racism is acceptable


Saying this loudy and clearly and often enough is the best way to ensure we make some headway in the struggle against racism in general. Concealing it in the other hand is only likely to ensure that we will get nowhere in that struggle and will only encourage the suspciion - however unwarranted - that we are only siding with one group of racists against another. In short, that we are hypcritres not to be trusted.

[robbo203]

To deny the notion that whites as a group hold power is stupid and flies directly to the face of reality. Rich black people don't exactly live a hard knock life but even they are very underrepresented in political and business life. Likewise, the existence of women like Queen Elizabeth and Hillary Clinton doesn't mean men as a group don't hold power - this doesn't mean every man or every white person is in some kind of powerful position. But as a group, they are, this should be fairly obvious when you look at pretty much any powerful institution in the United States or another similarly multicultural yet white-dominated society. This is very important to realize, just going "guys race doesn't matter guys all racism is equally bad" is just stupid, society is major league skewed in favour of white people. Far right nutjobs don't try to make that a reality, they're trying to enforce and conserve that reality.

So yeah, I go along with that sort of crap.

Well, yes, you said it yourself - you do seem to do along with that crap and you dont mind saying so.

If you think some poor white kid from a sink housing estate who joins some crappy racist outfit like the BNP or the EDL, is trying to "enforce and conserve a reality" in which he or she enjoys any kind of meaningful power, then Im afraid you are indeed seriously deluded. What's more you are giving succour to his delusions as well

[#FF0000]

people on this forum seem to be more opposed to the term "white privilege" than what it means

people irl are like that too. ask any white dude

'hey do black people have it rougher than white people'

'lol fucking yes they do are you kidding me'

'hey what do you think of your white privilege'

'agugbugbugbubguurugu i work guguhguhauhguhg black people welfare guaguugagug'

[Rottenfruit]

1. There is no such thing as black anti-white racism... there IS, however, resentment which sometimes leads to a kind of defensive bigotry. This goes for most divisions like racism in our society. Speaking of racism/sexism in abstract terms ("oh sure there's structural racism, but then there's the bad attitudes of some whites and also the bad attitudes of some blacks which is just as bad but not as prevalent") is like speaking of violence in abstract terms ("sure the police were heavy-handed responding to that strike, but so were the strikers").
.
Yes there is, heard about melannin theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory) which claims that whites are inferior and blacks are the master race because they have more melanin?

The infamous rap band Meanace Clan which made almost a entire cd about just killing white people oQjX1h8VuWA

Khalid Muhammed had a cult following and he directly advocated genocide,murder and torture of white people. Ca_rQyKx_dg

Just like the KKK what follows these people is extreme homophobia and hatred of the weak(notice in the speak he speaks about killing the crippled)
The site http://whitewatch.info is a geniune and not a joke anti white website
This stuff goes beyond bigotry this is pure hatred

[leftistman]

:thumbdown:

[leftistman]

Not sure if trolling or just a black nationalist...

[#FF0000]

words

The difference is that this "racism" has literally 0 effect on white people in general. White people as a whole do not suffer from any kind of racism.

[Rottenfruit]

Not sure if trolling or just a black nationalist...
Me? Far from from trolling and im Icelandic so you can probaly guess my skin color.

I know alot about hate groups on all sides, i've always had a morbid fascination with the odd and extreme.

Christitian Idenidity and Creators (so extreme neo nazis they are viweed as the fringe by most other neo nazis)

Kahanist idology created by Meir Kahane which is Ethnic Jewish supremicism and Kahane has the the distinct honor of being the only party banned in Israel for being too racist against palestians, his policy was to give all Palestinians 2 months to leave Gaza then to kill all who were left(no joke)

Melnanin theory,Black Septeraists and hebrew isrealistes among blacks


Like i sad i have a morbid curiosity for these type of groups.

[Rottenfruit]

The difference is that this "racism" has literally 0 effect on white people in general. White people as a whole do not suffer from any kind of racism.
There are documented cases of violent racialy motived attacks on whites even murders,
A group called the Death Angels which was a splinter group of the black supremcist orgianztion nation of islam, the death angels commited dozen or so racialy aggerivted murders of white people for the sole reason of there skin color

They are not common and nowhere nearly as common as white racist violence on blacks but denying that racialy motived crime and violence against whites does exist is a dangerous thing

[The Jay]

The difference is that this "racism" has literally 0 effect on white people in general. White people as a whole do not suffer from any kind of racism.


I know that you don't think this makes anti-white racism okay so why are you dismissing it as unimportant? Anti-white racism matters in prison quite a bit as well as in less than savory neighborhoods. It may not be institutional in the current system of government but that doesn't change the fact that it does effect people in situations of reversed power-dynamics.

Addressed to no-one in particular: Honestly, a lot of this seems to have drifted from a conversation of how race effects and is effected by society to a "less racist than thou" contest, whether those involved realize it or not.

[#FF0000]

There are documented cases of violent racialy motived attacks on whites even murders,
A group called the Death Angels which was a splinter group of the black supremcist orgianztion nation of islam, the death angels commited dozen or so racialy aggerivted murders of white people for the sole reason of there skin color

They are not common and nowhere nearly as common as white racist violence on blacks but denying that racialy motived crime and violence against whites does exist is a dangerous thing

I'm not saying that it does not happen. I am saying that racism is not a fact of life for all white people like it is for all people of color in America (especially in America). For white people, racial discrimination is a weird thing that happens once in a blue moon, if ever. For people who are not white, it's just a fact of life sewn right into the fabric of society.

[#FF0000]

Anti-white racism matters in prison

I think it's pretty funny that you're bringing up prison when trying to talk about how 'anti-white racism' is such a big problem. I'm not going to say prison is easy for anyone but I'd rather be white than black or hispanic in prison any day.


quite a bit as well as in less than savory neighborhoods.Er people in those situations might experience racial discrimination on an individual level but that's pretty much it, guy.

[#FF0000]

basically people who complain about anti-white racism like it's an actual serious problem that needs to be addressed are chasing the biggest, dumbest red herring on the planet

[The Jay]

basically people who complain about anti-white racism like it's an actual serious problem that needs to be addressed are chasing the biggest, dumbest red herring on the planet

I address it when it comes up, like in a thread that specifically references it or implies something along that line. You also didn't address my main points in your other post.

[#FF0000]

I address it when it comes up, like in a thread that specifically references it or implies something along that line. You also didn't address my main points in your other post.

I think I did. Which ones didn't I address?

[Os Cangaceiros]

people on this forum seem to be more opposed to the term "white privilege" than what it means

I understand why white people are defensive about it, actually. Well, white activists, anyway. Throw the white privilege line out at someone who's not a leftist and they will probably just scrunch their face up and look at you like you're speaking Farsi or something.

Anyway, white left-wingers and activists tend to be offended by it because they are a well meaning bunch, and they probably think that they're trying to make the world a better place, and they even probably identify a lot of the problems in the world as a result of, well, white people and/or racism, but "white privilege" really seems to denote that there is just something innately wrong with them as human beings, that they're intrinsically part of the problem whether they like it or not by virtue of something they can never change. I mean, they can attempt to "challenge their white privilege", but that's really a never ending process.

Plus the charge of being a privileged whitey hangs like a spectre over everything they say, LOL.

[robbo203]

The difference is that this "racism" has literally 0 effect on white people in general. White people as a whole do not suffer from any kind of racism.


I think the point to emphasise is that even if this were true (barring the kind of exceptional circumstances that have already been mentioned) this does not mean anti-white racism does not exist. It simply means that it does not take the form of structural racism. Structural racism gives rise to racist attitudes but is also sustained by racist attitudes. Racist attitudes - whether you are the victim or the beneficiary of structural racism - are still a form of racism

Seeing whites as a whole as the problem is racist just as seeing blacks as a whole as the problem is racist. As long as people think like this the real problem - which is class ownership of the means of producton - will always be crowded out. All racism without exception needs to be opposed and we should not pull our punches about doing so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I recognize that racism is built into the structure of capitalism, especially int the United States these days, but I don't know what you mean by "white people as a group hold power" and I really don't by into white privilige. I mean quality of life tends to be better for whites than for blacks because of the racist structures in place but I don't know if this is really too much of a privilige. The only real privilige for whites is the absence of the oppression that is inflicted upon blacks.

Yeah while some of what is described (or observed) in Privilage Theroy is correct IMO about the way in which the experience of the oppressed and non-oppressed are different. Well meaning men against sexism still sometimes make assumptions about women in ways they don't pick up on because of different general expectations in society and experiences. However, I think Privilege Theory is ultimately a liberal theory that is also often idealist in practice: all the "own your privilege" crap as if acknowledging inequalities will actually do something about it and in my opinion workers shouldn't consider it "privileged" to not be harassed by cops for no reason or beaten up for holding hands in public. Privilege theory is a step up from Identity Politics but still falls short in analysis and application.

But anyway I agree with your post and I think the idea that whites as a whole hold power just dosen't hold together when you tug on the threads. So what about Immigrant whites or homosexual whites or women... all oppressed people, so then you have to either think that all whites conditionally hold power in society, or some whites some times hold power etc. It get's mushy. Or consider oppression against immigrants - do native-born people hold power, does that then include blacks who while treated as 2nd class in jobs and position in society are still more "privileged" compared to undocumented workers who don't even get the chance to have rights denied to them because as undocumented workers they have no rights.

This is why all these kinds of oppressions stick around: there are material interests on the part of our rulers to pit people individually and as groups against each-other. Prisons in California are legally segregated - why? To keep prisoners divided: the prison system says that it segregates to prevent violence... but there is already violence and no argument that segregation does anything to ease that so the violence that is feared is prisoners uniting around their common grievances as has happened in the past.

So oppression plays out in a multi-tiered and very fractured way in society; the uniting feature, however, is the divide and rule element of all these kinds of oppression. While many non-oppressed side with racist or sexist ideas, ultimately they are not the CAUSE of this and materially they are hurt by it. Not only does sexism and anti-immigrant policies act as downward pressure on working class wages, but the demonetization of black youth is the vehicle the ruling class built to carry out their neo-liberal offensive against the whole US working class. As a class we are only as strong as the most oppressed in our class and that is why special oppressions in society are as much a direct class concern as economic issues.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know that you don't think this makes anti-white racism okay so why are you dismissing it as unimportant? Anti-white racism matters in prison quite a bit as well as in less than savory neighborhoods.Non-majority white neighborhoods are less than savory? :unsure: That may not be the best way to phrase that comrade. At any rate I also think this is a myth. I have light skin and live in a overwhelmingly Latino immigrant area where the second largest demographic is black folks... I have never had any bigotry directed at me there... more looks of confusion if anything. It's surprisng actually because cops killed several people within a mile of my house and I see white cops harassing and shaking down young kids daily. In fact doing political orgaizing, the most common negative response from non-white residents is mistrust, not bigotry. And while never being attacked in a bigoted way (oh a skinhead with Nazi tattoos did yell at me for being a communist in this neighborhood) I have been harassed by cops for political organizing and sometimes they will interrupt me when I'm talking to a group of young black guys and start asking them what drugs they are selling and what warrants they have as a way to intimidate them from political organizing. So first hand the kind of shit involved in systemic racism far outweighs both direct anti-black racism by random whites and to an even greater degree to any instances of anti-white bigotry among black people.

At any rate I think your prison example illustrates how this "racism equivalency" argument confuses things. What's the bigger problem, where is the revolutionary priority? That maybe some white people are targeted in prison (most prison violence is inter-group, so while I don't doubt that it happens sometimes and maybe more often than outside, it's not really a regular thing), or that the US has the largest prison population in the world thanks mostly to drug-enforcement policies which send SWAT teams through black and Latino and poor white neighborhoods but never elite college dorms where I'm sure the pickings are more plentiful? Even in this "prison violence" formulation, ironically, it's only BECAUSE blacks and Latinos have been disproportionately targeted by racist systems that there is even the possibility of any kind of organized attack on a white folks for being white.

Also I don't think that anti-white racism was an issue in the downwardly mobile white neighborhood I grew up in... the neo-nazi gangs didn't even claim that there was anti-white racism back then before the conservatives and liberals in the mainstream began talking about "reverse-racism". They just saw it as keeping "unsavory-types" out of the neighborhood... mostly just fought amongst themselves for turf like any other gang though.


It may not be institutional in the current system of government but that doesn't change the fact that it does effect people in situations of reversed power-dynamics. "it sucks to be mistreated" is not an analysis of how the US capitalist system works and does not suggest any strategy for how to deal with these issues. Yes, subjectively, being mistreated by anyone is shitty... cops don't like being called pigs and often take it personally. BUT I think it's not politically useful to speak of racism in non-systemic ways. As long as systemic racism exists, there will be some people who react to that by identifying whites or males as the oppressor in a non-class way - this is a problem, but a secondary one and one that pales in comparison to the much larger issue of a lack of a movement against systemic oppression and the much more fundamental issue of the existence of that oppression in the first place.


Addressed to no-one in particular: Honestly, a lot of this seems to have drifted from a conversation of how race effects and is effected by society to a "less racist than thou" contest, whether those involved realize it or not.I don't think anyone in this debate is a supporter of racism, my concern however is that people are making arguments which actually obfuscate the relationship of racism and class in US society and I feel that some of the arguments have adapted to racist attitudes common in our society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But this is not what we are arguing about it - is it? We are arguing about 2 things

1) what to do about the tendency among some of the victims of white racism against blacks to blame white people in general? This is false and misdirects energies into a completely wrong solutions.Well I don't think this is what we are arguing about (not me anyway) because I take this point for granted. The issue I have is with the argument that there is any sort of equivalency (in terms of material reality of capitalist society in the US) between anti-white bigotry and anti-black racism - or parallels with other examples of systemic oppression.


2) what to do about the tendency among some some whites to blame blacks or immigrants for the the problems they face. This too is false and misdirects energies into a completely wrong solutionsYes both these in 1 and 2 are barriers to effective class struggle. However, I think that the ideological issue is secondary to systemic racism - as long as the cops and courts, for example, are targeting young black males then it will be easy for the ruling class to make the argument and convince many whites that young black males are mostly criminals or have a "bad/inferior" culture. The ideas are held in place by systemic racism... and as long as systemic racism goes largely unchallenged and is seemingly entrenched in society with little opposition from blacks and the appearance of indifference or actual support from the majority of white people, then systemic racism against blacks (or oppression of women or LGBT folks etc) will also produce some level of resentment by the oppressed towards the non-oppressed who are part of the dominant social group.

So this is why I stress over and over again that "bigotry" is different from (systemic) racism and why I think a distinction is important. I will try and clarify that from here on in this discussion because I don't expect people to just adopt the way I'm framing things; my semantic point was a way of emphasizing the difference between systemic and inter-personal racism. IMO it's an important difference and the confusion of the two things has hampered the struggle against racism.


What on earth are you saying here Juimmy? That whites as a whole can oppress blacks as a whole but it can never be the other a way round because blacks are a small minority.Nope, I don't think whites as a whole oppress blacks.


Its utterly meaningless to talk of "whites as a whole" oppressing or of " blacks as a whole" being oppressed.Whites as a whole do not benefit from racism, white workers indirectly suffer because of it. However, ALL BLACKS are racially oppressed across class lines. This oppression impacts blacks differently based on position in society and this causes a divergence in interests and strategy when it comes to black anti-racist struggle (win legal "rights" and access to white institutions for the petty- and bourgeois proper vs. a need to take on much more systemic features of capitalism in order to fight racism for working class and marginalized poor blacks). This can be seen in sexism as well and many other kinds of oppression and it's why within struggles against these oppressions, there is always also a class struggle over the direction and aims of these movements.

To argue that the small group of middle class blacks, and even elite blacks, do not suffer at all from racism in society is not factual and will actually help nationalists and separatists make their case better that socialism doesn't care about oppression and that blacks are more oppressed racially than by class. If a professor can be arrested for "breaking into his own home" and then arguing with a cop about it; if the freaking President can get anti-black flack for saying that arresting someone after they have shown that it was their home "is stupid"... then yes, on some level all blacks irregardless of class are impacted by racism.

But they are obviously not impacted in the same way and the whole concept of what liberation would look like diverges along class lines considering that middle class and elite blacks have had no problem seeing their own capitalist upward mobility as "liberation" even when that upward mobility means that it's a black police chief in charge of the system of anti-black racial control or now with Obama a black person presiding over the government of a fundamentally racist society at a time when it's getting worse.


There are some whites who oppress just as there are some blacks who oppress. While on average we can talk about more whites doing the oppressing than blacks - making due allowance for differences in population size - it is also true that some blacks doing the oppressing.No, there are NO BLACKS SYSTEMATICALLY OPPRESSING WHITES in the US. Where is an example of that? Where are the black-owned financial institutions targeting whites for bad loans, where are the black cops that target predominantly white college dorms for SWAT-team drug sweeps?

I'll give you a hint... the tiny number of black elites and the slightly larger number of black professionals are not oppressing white people for being white. They are oppressing people on a class basis, but in reality, even then the black cops are targeting black neighborhoods, the few black elitie bankers are targeting poor blacks! Racism in the sense I'm talking about it, the most important aspects of it in our society, exists INDEPENDENTLY to the individual attitudes of cops, prosecutors, mayors, etc. The police is not a racist institution because there are white people in it, it is racist because of the order and organization of class in this society, not people disliking other people. In the modern SYSTEM of racism in the US, often it's black officials who are running the show, so again it's systemic racism which is the problem and the personal bigotry of people is secondary to that.


Point is oppression is carried out by specific concrete individuals not abstract notions like the "white popualtion as a whole" which has no meaningful sociological purchase on the reality its seeks to shed light onNo, racism is a function of class rule in the US. Oppression generally in capitalist society flows from the top, not "specific individuals". Part of the reason racism has become WORSE in the US is because people have adopted many of the views you express here. "It can't be racist because a black mayor supports it" or "the police aren't racist because many are black themselves and they don't arrest people for being black, the laws are colorblind". This comes from a conflation and confusion over daily bigotry and the kind of systemic racism I've been trying to talk about. To argue that people who don't like whites because they resent racism in society are the same as the KKK (as one other poster said) is not only historically and materially wrong, it confuses the issue and makes it harder to recognize and fight racism.


What? Are you suggesting white workers are not oppressed? Not specifically for being white in the US. In the past for being Irish Catholic or Italian or Southern European but not for being "white".


What are you trying to say here? How is it "idealist" to oppose anti-black and anti-white attitudes equally. I regard any form of racism as objectionable and will oppose it wherever it crops up. While blaming men or white people is a problem It's the "equivalency" argument I think is incorrect and is just as much of a problem. In addition, the "colorblind" arguments shared by both conservatives and liberals in the US, are INFINITELY more common than attitudes of "all whites/all men/all heterosexuals" being the cause of oppression and so it is a much more immediate problem IMO.


I suppose what youmight mean is that there is more racism directed against blacks than against whites and so, as a matter of empirical fact, you will find yourself in effect countering white racism against blacks more often than the converse.No, it's not numbers and it's not personal attitudes I am concerned with regarding oppression - I am concerned with the relationship of oppression to the system of class rule. No where are blacks (or whites) instituting policies and systems of control targeting white people for being white. White people are oppressed as workers, not by blacks for their race... but part of the way the ruling class gets away with the class oppression is through the tools of other specific oppression against groups in society.

Racism has been pushed from the top of US society every time there has been a class challenge to their rule.

This spans from when white and black servants rebelled together causing the colonial rulers to create a racial caste system for servants, segregating European indentured servants from black slaves; to when the southern elite was removed after the civil war and their rallying cry for "redemption" was "negro domination" and they attacked activist blacks as well as white Republican abolitionists; all the way to recent times when the US ruling class responded to a general rise in struggle and growing identification with the black struggle by white workers with the "Southern Strategy" a deliberate attempt to 1) categorize any political unrest as "crimes" 2) convince whites that they will suffer from increased social gains by blacks.

These are quite different phases in US history and different ruling forces, but the strategy remains strikingly consistent: when the oppressed begin to unite around common class interests, they are divided through efforts of the ruling class from ideological arguments to outright terrorism... then these divisions are cemented in place through a system of control: Mass Slavery, then Jim Crow and now the modern mass incarceration system.


Well thats fair enough as an empirocal claim although I am not sure if that is exactly what you mean. If you mean like some guilt stricken white liberal we have to soft peddle of downplay black racism for fear of offending our fellow workers who happen to be black - and extremely patronising position to take in my view - then Im afraid your approach is doomed to failure from the start. It wont do anything to addresss bigotry expressed by those white workers towards blacks and will make no inroads in getting the former to abandon their bigoted views if you do not come acorss as not even handded in your condemnantion of racism . No, I'm saying don't adapt to social chauvinism, don't ignore structural racism because it is an ALBATROSS around the neck of the American working class. It's ILLOGICAL to treat structural racism (with the biggest prison system in the world and increasing inequality and decreasing rights for blacks) as equivalent to small numbers of individuals and a couple of discredited groups with no social force or power who blame all whites. It is counterproductive to building a working class movement in the US if people are as concerned with marginal views among the black population as they are with a huge and powerful system of control and targeting of black people.

The KKK and the prison system need to be smashed - people who support these things are not going to be supporters of workers struggles. Feminists who believe in separating from men and blame all men for sexism should be treated by workers in the same way? Or should we merely out-organize them and build a more effective way to combat sexism. The implication is that we should want to convince people who are potentially an audience for patriarchy arguments or black separatist arguments because that audience is going to be a whole lot of workers who are sick of sexism or racism and looking for answers. To try and present any kind of equvalency, to say, "hey women, sexism is bad and just as much of a problem is how these academic feminists wrote this article in 1974 saying that men should be politically disenfranchised for starting all wars and oppressing women" is to basically discredit yourself in the eyes of any worker who faces one of these specific kinds of oppressions.

As a white person in Oakland I've had a couple of times where I encountered some random abusive black guy who said some bigoted things. I've overheard people make some crude stereotypes and it's common for black people to blame white renters for gentrification rather than the developers and the city who are actually doing the gentrification schemes. Some of these are political problems - a movement against gentrification can not be built effectivly on those attitudes, for example. But these are debates to have within movements or in a general sort of way. On the other hand there is something like 50% unemployment of young black males in Oakland, a police force that is infamously abusive and targets blacks, gentrification, foreclosures, and on and on. So can any serious person say there is an equivalency between a huge system of control and the attitudes of some marginal individuals IN RESPONSE TO THAT HUGE SYSTEM?

Blaming white renters for gentrification isn't politically useful... but what is the source of this problem? Is it that some black people blame whites for gentrification or the fact of gentrification itself?


See, its the racists also that you have to address in tackling racism - not just the victims of racism and personally I think this where many on the Left dont real have any answer. They are reduced to a position of moralistic posturing which is not going to cur any ice to a young racist thug who thinlks the left does not mind racism so long as it expressed by a black worker . Its little wonder that racism is on the rise in many parts of Europe and for all I know the States as well. A loy of the constituency of racist groups are poor whites who would consider it to be a complete joke to think they are oppressing blacks . From their point of view , utterly twisted though it may be , quite the opposite is true. These are the kinds of thought processes you have to deal with, not just brush under the carpet, if you want to seriously address racismSo it's more improtant to appeal to people who support racist systems than to appeal to the victims of those racist systems?

IMO No. The civil rights movement was able to change attitudes generally because there was struggle, because anti-racist forces organized and countered the racist forces and their racist arguments about society. This led, then, to large numbers of white support for the anti-racist struggle even as the struggle radicalized and became more working class in nature. Attitudes did not change, as MLK claimed by "appealing to the better angels of our nature" but through struggle.


I would say even racists needs to be spoken to somehow and most certainly the larger section of the population who are pwerhaps semi racist and proine to certain implictly racist ways of thinking. Reaching these people absolutely requires one to be - and to be seen to be - uncompromisingly even handed in your condemnation of racism of any kind - whether it be white racism,. black racism or any other kind of racismShow me where the US ruling class is systemically targeting whites for control and 2nd class social status - for being white - and I will thoroughly and forcefully condemn it.

Finally, if anti-white sentiment is an equal problem to anti-black racism, then what is the strategy for combating this? Is there one in your view? How to revolutionaries act in such social conditions?

Again, I see it as necessary to hit the systemic roots of these kinds of oppression which will also allow us as a class to challenge some of the pillars that our rulers rest on and learn how to fight as a united class. If non-systemic bigotry in society (which, yes, is divisive no matter what the circumstance) is the main issue, the only strategy I can imagine would be to tell people "don't be like that, here's why" and it would be an idealist strategy IMO.

[#FF0000]

I think the point to emphasise is that even if this were true (barring the kind of exceptional circumstances that have already been mentioned) this does not mean anti-white racism does not exist. It simply means that it does not take the form of structural racism. Structural racism gives rise to racist attitudes but is also sustained by racist attitudes. Racist attitudes - whether you are the victim or the beneficiary of structural racism - are still a form of racismNo one's saying that white people can't be victims of someone else's racial bigotry. But that's the extent of it. It doesn't exist above an individual level.
All racism without exception needs to be opposed and we should not pull our punches about doing so.Nah anti-white bigotry isn't equal to the racism experienced by people of color or whatever and it's hella dumb to try and say that it is.

[The Jay]

Non-majority white neighborhoods are less than savory? :unsure: That may not be the best way to phrase that comrade.

I thought that it may be interpreted that way, but I also thought that it would be clear I meant it in a different way.


At any rate I also think this is a myth. I have light skin and live in a overwhelmingly Latino immigrant area where the second largest demographic is black folks... I have never had any bigotry directed at me there... more looks of confusion if anything. It's surprisng actually because cops killed several people within a mile of my house and I see white cops harassing and shaking down young kids daily. In fact doing political orgaizing, the most common negative response from non-white residents is mistrust, not bigotry. And while never being attacked in a bigoted way (oh a skinhead with Nazi tattoos did yell at me for being a communist in this neighborhood) I have been harassed by cops for political organizing and sometimes they will interrupt me when I'm talking to a group of young black guys and start asking them what drugs they are selling and what warrants they have as a way to intimidate them from political organizing. So first hand the kind of shit involved in systemic racism far outweighs both direct anti-black racism by random whites and to an even greater degree to any instances of anti-white bigotry among black people.

At any rate I think your prison example illustrates how this "racism equivalency" argument confuses things. What's the bigger problem, where is the revolutionary priority? That maybe some white people are targeted in prison (most prison violence is inter-group, so while I don't doubt that it happens sometimes and maybe more often than outside, it's not really a regular thing), or that the US has the largest prison population in the world thanks mostly to drug-enforcement policies which send SWAT teams through black and Latino and poor white neighborhoods but never elite college dorms where I'm sure the pickings are more plentiful? Even in this "prison violence" formulation, ironically, it's only BECAUSE blacks and Latinos have been disproportionately targeted by racist systems that there is even the possibility of any kind of organized attack on a white folks for being white.
You shifted the question from, "is there anti-white racism?" to "what is the cause of racism in society?" I was answering the first question.



Also I don't think that anti-white racism was an issue in the downwardly mobile white neighborhood I grew up in... the neo-nazi gangs didn't even claim that there was anti-white racism back then before the conservatives and liberals in the mainstream began talking about "reverse-racism". They just saw it as keeping "unsavory-types" out of the neighborhood... mostly just fought amongst themselves for turf like any other gang though.I'm not sure if that was a shot at me but I'll act like it wasn't. I didn't say that anti-white racism happens often. I said that it happens and shouldn't be ignored because it isn't institutionalized. I think that's fair.

I could throw out some personal stories and the experiences of relatives to counter yours but that wouldn't prove anything.


"it sucks to be mistreated" is not an analysis of how the US capitalist system works and does not suggest any strategy for how to deal with these issues. Yes, subjectively, being mistreated by anyone is shitty... cops don't like being called pigs and often take it personally. BUT I think it's not politically useful to speak of racism in non-systemic ways. As long as systemic racism exists, there will be some people who react to that by identifying whites or males as the oppressor in a non-class way - this is a problem, but a secondary one and one that pales in comparison to the much larger issue of a lack of a movement against systemic oppression and the much more fundamental issue of the existence of that oppression in the first place.I'll repeat that you shifted the question. You are also trying to impose a different definition of racism in a debate without pointing out that new definition in our interaction. Now it's clear that I'm not a crazy person who thinks that everyone's out to get whitey, which I thought would have been clear by default.


I don't think anyone in this debate is a supporter of racism, my concern however is that people are making arguments which actually obfuscate the relationship of racism and class in US society and I feel that some of the arguments have adapted to racist attitudes common in our society.
You are the one trying to impose a class-based definition of the word without a clear agreement upon that definition. That part is on you since I was using the popular definition. I would be willing to consider your definition in future discussion however.

[#FF0000]

you could just assume that he is using 'anti-white bigotry' where you are using 'anti-white racism' you know.

EDIT: and okay if anti-white racism shouldn't be ignored, how should it be dealt with?

[The Jay]

you could just assume that he is using 'anti-white bigotry' where you are using 'anti-white racism' you know.

EDIT: and okay if anti-white racism shouldn't be ignored, how should it be dealt with?


Yes, I just pmed him about his definitions. I don't think that I should be faulted for using the common definition of the word "racism" though.

As for it being dealt with, I don't know. I don't personally hold much hope for racists that are really deep into it.

[Lowtech]

Yes, I just pmed him about his definitions. I don't think that I should be faulted for using the common definition of the word "racism" though.

As for it being dealt with, I don't know. I don't personally hold much hope for racists that are really deep into it.

If youre refering to mr robo, theres nothing new about the semantics and taking things out of context, some do enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, theres no real discussion with those sorts of people.

As far as racism goes, im sure every ethnicity has been subject to some kind throughout history, however the treatment of minorities, indingenous peoples etc has historically been by far the worst

I find that the racism usually associated with "white" people is in actuality symptoms of the persisting class struggle that was first forged in early imperialist civilizations like rome and then brought to an incredible degree after industrialization and modern capitalism developed...It is not ethnicity based

In the US, racism against minorities was ignored for a very long time, and even now crimes against minorities in our country are often given insulting and down right stupid comments like 'theres not enough evidence in the martín case' when it was clearly murder and we have cops dishonoring thier profession by tasering children

Racism is real, although i dont blame it on thier ethnicity, theyre just flat out idiots,

[Jimmie Higgins]

EDIT: and okay if anti-white racism shouldn't be ignored, how should it be dealt with?

I think this is the dividing point on this question... for me, this is also why I think we need a more specific way of looking at racism beyond just dislike for a racial group. In the rhelm of ideas, yes, any bigotry is equally unhelpful. But in my view, in society there can be no equivalency made because of differences in relationship of these beliefs to the ruling order of society.

[Rottenfruit]

you could just assume that he is using 'anti-white bigotry' where you are using 'anti-white racism' you know.

EDIT: and okay if anti-white racism shouldn't be ignored, how should it be dealt with?
Like racialy motived crime is dealt with hate crime laws