Whiteness of Wages

[Questionable]

http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Whiteness-American-Working-Haymarket/dp/1844671453


Combining classical Marxism, psychoanalysis, and the new labor history pioneered by E. P. Thompson and Herbert Gutman, David Roediger’s widely acclaimed book provides an original study of the formative years of working-class racism in the United States. This, he argues, cannot be explained simply with reference to economic advantage; rather, white working-class racism is underpinned by a complex series of psychological and ideological mechanisms that reinforce racial stereotypes, and thus help to forge the identities of white workers in opposition to Blacks.

Although I have not read the book, based on the information I've found it seems to be saying that the white working class created racism itself by using minorities as a stepping stone to increase their own status in the capitalist hierarchy ("Us white workers deserve more than negros!").

Has anyone read this? Any thoughts on it?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Sounds like it makes superficial plays at being "scientific", aka "rather, white working-class racism is underpinned by a complex series of psychological and ideological mechanisms that reinforce racial stereotypes". If this is to be "proven" using psychoanalysis, then I can't say I have much hope for the work.

[black magick hustla]

racism is superstructure

[blake 3:17]

I've read it several times. It's a fabulous book and a very good account of the early American labor movement. He uses Thompson's basic method of history from below to examine how race and class identities were formed simultaneously and helped forge some of the peculiarities of American working class consciousness.

White workers both were emboldened and conservatized by positioning themselves as free white workers as opposed to unfree black slaves. There's also a thoughtful examination of how white workers romanticized Native peoples, while participating in their destruction.

In no way does he reject the American working class as an agent for social change. He does point to the absolute necessity of anti-racism as a part of an emancipatory working class politics.

He does draw on psychoanalytic and other cultural theory to make sense of a very confusing and contradictory history. He is a historian and his worked is grounded in actual events, places, and people.

[Questionable]

I've read it several times. It's a fabulous book and a very good account of the early American labor movement. He uses Thompson's basic method of history from below to examine how race and class identities were formed simultaneously and helped forge some of the peculiarities of American working class consciousness.

White workers both were emboldened and conservatized by positioning themselves as free white workers as opposed to unfree black slaves. There's also a thoughtful examination of how white workers romanticized Native peoples, while participating in their destruction.

In no way does he reject the American working class as an agent for social change. He does point to the absolute necessity of anti-racism as a part of an emancipatory working class politics.

He does draw on psychoanalytic and other cultural theory to make sense of a very confusing and contradictory history. He is a historian and his worked is grounded in actual events, places, and people.

But doesn't this kind of downplay the labor movement in America by saying "Oh, it was just a bunch of racist white people"? Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding but that's what bothers me about the statement of the book.

[Yuppie Grinder]

racism is superstructure

/thread

[The Jay]

/thread

Sure, let us act as though the issue is so simple as if just saying that complex social issues are solely the result of economic base, reducing an overdetermined subject to a reductionist one.

Look, you're cool and all but that doesn't fly.

[black magick hustla]

Sure, let us act as though the issue is so simple as if just saying that complex social issues are solely the result of economic base, reducing an overdetermined subject to a reductionist one.

Look, you're cool and all but that doesn't fly.

i wasn't really saying they are simply a matter of "economics", that is a very strange reading of what superstructure viz base means. i just don't really trust anybody using psychoanalytic theory for anything. psychoanalytic theory is around the same level as astrology

[The Jay]

i wasn't really saying they are simply a matter of "economics", that is a very strange reading of what superstructure viz base means. i just don't really trust anybody using psychoanalytic theory for anything. psychoanalytic theory is around the same level as astrology

You gave a three word spam answer that only someone already familiar with the viewpoint would know as opposed to one that would be understandable and further conversation with someone that did not know already.

I also do not find it to be a "very strange reading." Even if it was, you laid out no definitions or references to indicate anything of what you personally meant.

In regards to not trusting psychoanalysis, I don't either.

[blake 3:17]

But doesn't this kind of downplay the labor movement in America by saying "Oh, it was just a bunch of racist white people"? Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding but that's what bothers me about the statement of the book.

Not at all.

By "statement of the book", do you mean the blurb on Amazon?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's been a while by my impression of the book was that it's depiction of histroy had a lot of gaps which leads to an unconvincing description of the origins of racism and it's function in US society.

There were a lot of interesting parts in the book and it's definately important to explore and understand the level of racism in the early working class movements and so on.

However, the book seemed to ignore the physical and structural ways racism was constructed. White workers could "other" blacks (and other groups) because these groups were already divided and seperated. This came from the top and after rebellions involving white servants and black slaves, the landowners enacted restrictions on black people and enforced seperate quarters.

Later with a more modern working class, the bosses would deliberately pit groups of workers against eachother creating group competition for jobs and housing and so on. Even during slavery, part of the south's apologism involved arguing that industrial labor was more harmful than slave-labor for the induvidual toiler; while in the north Democrats argued that abolition would lead to blacks replacing all the Irish workers.

The book also ignores black struggle and the effects of anti-racist resistance on both black and white worker's consiousness.

So IMO it's idealist to treat the concept of "whiteness" or racism as some ideological thing - some psycological trick by the ruling class to get white worker's on board. It's a reflection and part of real situations in US society and dynamics of class struggle and conflict.


White workers both were emboldened and conservatized by positioning themselves as free white workers as opposed to unfree black slaves.How did workers position themselves as free labor and blacks as slaves? How did white workers get to determine social relations in the US capitalist system?


There's also a thoughtful examination of how white workers romanticized Native peoples, while participating in their destruction.Well IMO there's a big difference between the racist ideas of white workers and racist ideas of white farmers and settlers - white workers, even if they feel that they get a 'psycological wage' from white supremacy, are ultimately indirectly hurt by it, by living in a country with more repressive forces (like increased sentancing and jailing), less democratic reforms and rights, and ultimately inability to create an effective class movement. Settlers, however, actually gained materially by supporting the removal of native populations.

[Questionable]

Not at all.

By "statement of the book", do you mean the blurb on Amazon?

No, a Maoist comrade recommended it to me and he gave me a quick synopsis. I'm not trying to knock the book unfairly but you must understand I'm cautious about reading things that may end up being a bit of a waste of time. This book doesn't sound too bad though.

[blake 3:17]

@JH
How did workers position themselves as free labor and blacks as slaves? How did white workers get to determine social relations in the US capitalist system? Roediger is exploring certain conjunctures and discusses these issues through the book. The wages of Whiteness are essentially a false wage, a fake provision, that costs the masters nothing and screws most everybody over.

The early American labor movement was not dominated by white supremacy and was generally informed by a radical republicanism that was frequently abolitionist and quite neutral on race. During the first few decades of the 19th century these ideas did shift.

I would look at the third chapter 'Neither a Servant Nor a Master Am I' : Keywords in the Languages of White Labor Republicanism

@ Questionable
No, a Maoist comrade recommended it to me and he gave me a quick synopsis. I'm not trying to knock the book unfairly but you must understand I'm cautious about reading things that may end up being a bit of a waste of time. This book doesn't sound too bad though. There have been some anti-worker ideas and books which originate in the Maoist movement. Sakai's Settlers is of some interest as a document of racism within the Anglo North American working class. Roediger takes a quite different stance, and one I think fairer, more informed, and less polemical, and provides a very useful and well rounded approach to race and class formation in the US.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

^I'm pretty skeptical of the division prosited above between "settlers" and "workers", since white workers have undeniably reaped the benefits of colonization. Further, I think the conception of the working class as the object of the active capitalist subject is deeply problematic, since it's the working class that is, in the final analysis, responsible for the reproduction of capital(ism). "Without our brain and muscle not a single wheel would turn," as the old wobbly song goes - raising, unintentionally, the dual character of working class power: to end capitalism, certainly, but also the power that, every day, brings capital to life. So, how is the working class responsibility for the creation of whiteness out of colonial and imperialist relationships? By doing the stuff that made them a thing. Duh.

[Questionable]

I'm pretty skeptical of the division prosited above between "settlers" and "workers", since white workers have undeniably reaped the benefits of colonization.

They're still a qualitatively different economic class, though. Isn't it moralizing to accuse white workers of guilt by association?


Further, I think the conception of the working class as the object of the active capitalist subject is deeply problematic, since it's the working class that is, in the final analysis, responsible for the reproduction of capital(ism).

But the material conditions are what work upon consciousness. It's not as if white workers have made a conscious choice to be racist. As Jimmie Higgins described, the bourgeoisie carried out a historical operation to divide up the working class.


So, how is the working class responsibility for the creation of whiteness out of colonial and imperialist relationships? By doing the stuff that made them a thing. Duh.

I'm a bit confused by this.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm a bit confused by this.

What I'm trying to say is that the white working class cannot be understood "outside" of the activity that produces it (its own labor), despite being alienated from it. Bourgeois hegemony doesn't somehow act as an ethical carte blanche that "forgives" the objective white supremacism of white workers, nor does it somehow make-them-not-what-they-are (active subjects whose labour has re/produced white supremacist capitalism).

To clarify, I don't mean this as a condemnation, only a necessary starting point.

[Rottenfruit]

^I'm pretty skeptical of the division prosited above between "settlers" and "workers", since white workers have undeniably reaped the benefits of colonization. Further, I think the conception of the working class as the object of the active capitalist subject is deeply problematic, since it's the working class that is, in the final analysis, responsible for the reproduction of capital(ism). "Without our brain and muscle not a single wheel would turn," as the old wobbly song goes - raising, unintentionally, the dual character of working class power: to end capitalism, certainly, but also the power that, every day, brings capital to life. So, how is the working class responsibility for the creation of whiteness out of colonial and imperialist relationships? By doing the stuff that made them a thing. Duh.
Very few white workers actully profited on the colianatzion, the reason for slavery was simple, using black people as free labour and using racism to justify it.

It's all about the $$$, you think the avarage working white class white man during the slavery period had black slaves? Doubt it only the richest burguoisis did

[blake 3:17]

Very few white workers actully profited on the colianatzion, the reason for slavery was simple, using black people as free labour and using racism to justify it.

It's all about the $$$, you think the avarage working white class white man during the slavery period had black slaves? Doubt it only the richest burguoisis did

I get your point. But as Marx wrote,"Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded."

What Roediger describes as the wages of Whiteness is a false wage, one in which White workers receive an ideological compensation on the basis of race, and not an actual redistribution of wealth.

There've been many discussions on this board about the validity of Lenin's theory of the labour aristocracy. The scientific merit of the idea is open to question.

For socialists, the political question is how we overcome racist and imperialist ideology and practice with the workers movement and the broad Left.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^I'm pretty skeptical of the division prosited above between "settlers" and "workers", since white workers have undeniably reaped the benefits of colonization.How did white workers undeniably materially gain from settlement and colonization?

Settlers, who made their living off the land they got from US conquest, not unlike Israeli settlers in frontier communes. They made money by growing for themselves and selling the excess. Workers made their money by working in mills.


Further, I think the conception of the working class as the object of the active capitalist subject is deeply problematic, since it's the working class that is, in the final analysis, responsible for the reproduction of capital(ism).LOL, start reading less POMO crap. It's bad for ya.

So by not fighting actively against the system, white workers are responsible for the racist structures that the ruling class instituted and led PR campaigns to convince other parts of the society to accept? In addition, since most of this happened before there was anything that could meaningfully be called a proletarian class in the US, I don't think the proletariat is the source of this no matter how much they later accepted the racism of society.

I have some news for you buddy, workers don't "participate in the system" because they accept it (necessarily) or by choice. It is because they have no organization and believe they have no other choice that people A) go to work B) begin to internalize the logic of the system and look for the least-worst personal option within that system.

This is basic class hegemony. It's how all class systems have worked. You work because it is "natural" (capitalism) or because God demands it (feudalism), not by choice. It means nothing in regards to object/subject, just a reflection of class organization and consciousness (which our rulers have and we don't).


What I'm trying to say is that the white working class cannot be understood "outside" of the activity that produces it (its own labor), despite being alienated from it. Bourgeois hegemony doesn't somehow act as an ethical carte blanche that "forgives" the objective white supremacism of white workers, nor does it somehow make-them-not-what-they-are (active subjects whose labour has re/produced white supremacist capitalism).

To clarify, I don't mean this as a condemnation, only a necessary starting point.Who said anything about "forgiving" white supremacy - even when it is held by workers or leftists (mostly in the past, thankfully). The question is, is it something white workers created and benefit from or is a condition of false consciousness where some workers have been convinced that to defend their wages, as the dmoninate group they need to unite with their rulers and keep marginalized groups marginalized.

Objectivly, there is no way that white supramacy helps white proletarians. Subjectivly, they may feel better for it just as subjectively some workers might feel better about the US winning a war. But both of these are the result of false-consiousness and in both cases most likely a reflection of attitudes and propaganda from the top that are actively sold to the working class. For example, every time there has been a recession or contraction in jobs in the US, there has also been an increase of political and media outcry about immigration - followed shortly by a supposedly organic and spontaneous nativity type movement, which is initially championed by media editorials.

When the working class has become "subjects" and thrust themselves into the center of action in the US, often overcoming some of this false consciousness has either been a pre-condition or part of that process. The sit-down strikes couldn't have been won if the male workers didn't have their sexist ideas challenged. For the S.F. general strike, it wouldn't have happened if the mostly white dockworkers hadn't sought the alliance of black workers in the city and attempted to overcome (justifiable) black suspicion of white workers. The white dockworkers promised to fight for non-racist hiring practices if the workers won in exchange for black support of the strike.

Do nativist or racist uprisings lead to more working class power? No, they always just want more power for our rulers to "do what they are supposed to do, close down the border, keep so and so in their place!". Working class subjectivity necessitates not "white" subjectivity, but class subjectivity and this requires overcoming some of the ideas that hold the class back or keep us divided.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Objectivly, there is no way that white supramacy helps white proletarians.

Seriously, go to a white working class neighbourhood, then go to a racialized neighbourhood. If you can't see the objective difference, well . . . it's probably because you're a racist moron as exemplified by statements like this one.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Seriously, go to a white working class neighbourhood, then go to a racialized neighbourhood. If you can't see the objective difference, well . . . it's probably because you're a racist moron as exemplified by statements like this one.Moronic... well I guess according to some. However, do you want to take a step back from calling me a racist?

I live in an immigrant neighborhood which would be considered much worse off that some other neighborhoods. Do you think that Latinos in the US benefit from anti-Latino immigrant racism/nativism because if you go to a native working class neighborhood with a majority Latino population, it's much better off than an immigrant latino neighborhood. In addition many Latino workers buy into the whole "wait your turn" argument about restricting immigrants, in fact many are against immigration even if their family immigrated here. So is this native Latino workers "othering" immigrants and creating oppression - or false consciousness?

Anyway, as a direct response: white workers tend to have better jobs and more security and so on. There is an OBJECTIVE difference, but that doesn't explain they dynamics or reasons for this. Do they actually benift from this? Do they cause this? You will need to do more than insult me to make your case.

IMO this observable difference is not the result of WORKING CLASS white racism, this is a result of racism and the oppression of blacks and other groups in the US. For example, all workers lost jobs in the recession, blacks lost jobs at a higher percentage - is that a result of white privilege that tons of white people lost their jons, or was it the result of black racism in society and oppression that when the shit hits the fan, the most oppressed eat the worst of it like Irish stuck in the bottom of the sinking Titanic.

White workers choose to support or fight such things as red-lining and segregation and the "war on drugs". Massive PR campaigns are waged to argue that these things are in the interests of white workers. But OBJECTIVLY they have all hurt the working class as a whole either directly (as in people targeted for the oppression/repression) or indirectly (white people aren't targeted for racial profiling, but all workers have had schools undermined and benefits cut and rights restricted due to spending on police and prisons etc). Sometimes the effect of racism on the non-oppressed isn't even indirect. For example, welfare was cut using racist propaganda in the US, but who received most welfare: poor whites.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Seriously, go to a white working class neighbourhood, then go to a racialized neighbourhood. If you can't see the objective difference, well . . . it's probably because you're a racist moron as exemplified by statements like this one.
One other thing, you're arguing that white workers are better off because of racism - and yet I, who say they are worse off because of it - am the racist?

If white supremacy is in the interests of white workers, why SHOULD they be anti-racist?

IMO Privilege theory is bankrupt when it comes to actually developing a strategy to confront the racist structure of they system let alone winning white workers away from supporting racism - since apparently they are better off for it according to these ideas, but rather than fighting racism, this theory tends to suggest that white "understand their privilege". So what is privilege theory good for if it doesn't offer a way to fight racism and get rid of the roots of this oppression? Hmm, maybe making white academics feel superior and more conscious than the rest of the white population. It's only good for analyzing privilage - ironically privileging those with the power and access to institutions and academic writing who can do such a task.

Worst of all, the adherents of this recent theory of racism insist that rejection of "privilege theory" of racism is a denial of racism in society. Yes, it observes real things - it just has a shitty liberal analysis of them and no radical solutions to the problem.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


Seriously, go to a white working class neighbourhood, then go to a racialized neighbourhood. If you can't see the objective difference, well . . . it's probably because you're a racist moron as exemplified by statements like this one.

Flaming is against the rules! Don't break them! If you can't be civil then just don't bother making a post!

If I see you breaking any more rules again you're infracted.

This post constitutes a warning to Virgin Molotov Cocktail.

[blake 3:17]

Seriously, go to a white working class neighbourhood, then go to a racialized neighbourhood. If you can't see the objective difference, well . . . it's probably because you're a racist moron as exemplified by statements like this one.

@VMC -- you just moved the discussion from a useful area of discussion to inaccurate and useless ad hominem terrain. Disappointing.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, my bad. JH isn't a racist moron. What was posted was implicitly racist, and rooted deeply in white supremacist ideology. Better? The "big picture" - that white workers would benefit from the defeat of white supremacy - doesn't change the reality that, in the short term, they do, objectively, benefit, and act accordingly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, my bad. JH isn't a racist moron. What was posted was implicitly racist, and rooted deeply in white supremacist ideology. Better? The "big picture" - that white workers would benefit from the defeat of white supremacy doesn't change the reality that, in the short term, they do, objectively, benefit, and act accordingly.How is what I said implicitly racist and white supremacist? How do white workers benifit from this system in the short-term as opposed to - what I argued - that they are not "benifiting" but rather not targeted for the same level and forms of oppression that black workers are?

White workers obviously are not subject to red-lining, racist depictions as "crimanals" on the news, racial profiling by police, and so on but how is not being pulled over for your race, not being harrassed a "benifit" rather than simply not being subject to this form of oppression?

In my view, many white workers BELIVE that on some level the police system benifits them, that the position of whites relative to oppressed and targeted groups needs to be maintained or enforced - but many workers also BELIEVE that a powerful US military or tax-cuts for the rich are in their interests. But this is mearly false-consiousness - obviously this is a problem and these attitudes and beliefs have to be countered, this is true of oppression too, but unlike ideas about "american exceptionalism" or nationalism, the targets of oppression are able to fight back and organize and express their demands. This is where I think privilage theroy fails - it mostly seems to focused on non-oppression rather than oppression and it offers no real way to fight oppression and leads to ideas like white people have to "give up" privilages rather than fight alongside blacks to defeat opressive systems like prisons or jim-crow.

[blake 3:17]

@JH -- While I agree with you to some degree, we do have to look at particular contingencies, and there's where most people are at. The poll about racism in the US pointed to that.

We're all caught up in the day to day routines of life and are usually looking to quick fixes. You and I are of a similar political generation on the radical Left and hold most values in common. These values are very very rare in North American society.

I may be comparing apples to oranges here, but part of the crisis in unionized manufacturing jobs here in Canada was facilitated by particular capital intensive industries' unions not fighting hard enough against overtime or for more ecologically sound industrial development. A number of the retired Auto Workers that I work with closely really regret not fighting harder on these issues. For the most part, the local leadership and memberships didn't want it. They wanted better wages, benefits, vacation, and health and safety. All of those are worth fighting for. Their concern for their children and grandchildren was more personal and relatively private. Long term socialist solutions are usually either way in the background or not there at all.

[blake 3:17]

OK, my bad. JH isn't a racist moron. What was posted was implicitly racist, and rooted deeply in white supremacist ideology. Better? The "big picture" - that white workers would benefit from the defeat of white supremacy doesn't change the reality that, in the short term, they do, objectively, benefit, and act accordingly.

"Implicitly racist"? Get over it.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

White workers obviously are not subject to red-lining, racist depictions as "crimanals" on the news, racial profiling by police, and so on [sweat shops? death squads? mass imprisonment? - that "and so on" is pretty damn significant] but how is not being pulled over for your race, not being harrassed a "benifit" rather than simply not being subject to this form of oppression?

That's right - white workers not being subjected to the full force of capitalist oppression is a benefit, unless you believe that cuddly liberalism is somehow the "normal" reality of capitalism from which third world, colonized, and racialized peoples are excluded. This is precisely backward - the normal functioning of capital is anything but the experience of the white working class, and they are the privileged exception.


This is where I think privilage theroy fails - it mostly seems to focused on non-oppression rather than oppression and it offers no real way to fight oppression and leads to ideas like white people have to "give up" privilages rather than fight alongside blacks to defeat opressive systems like prisons or jim-crow.

Certainly, white workers do need to fight alongside the POC/third world/colonized for the abolition of the prison industrial complex, the defeat of world imperialism, etc. - and yet they don't. The white workers organizations are more interested in improving working conditions for prison guards, or in subsidies to first world manufacturing, or whatever. Why is this? Shouldn't this be subject of some sort of materialist analysis, instead of suggesting that it's a product of subjective racism that can just be educated away? Shouldn't white workers "give up" (which is to say, enter in to struggle that will, inevitably, fundamentally undermine) their privileged relationship vis-a-vis the state and capital? Or do you imagine communism as the realization of the American dream (of the prosperous suburban worker with a BBQ) on a global level? Clearly this proposition is deeply problematic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's right - white workers not being subjected to the full force of capitalist oppression is a benefit, unless you believe that cuddly liberalism is somehow the "normal" reality of capitalism from which third world, colonized, and radicalized peoples are excluded. This is precisely backward - the normal functioning of capital is anything but the experience of the white working class, and they are the privileged exception.If not being subject to the full force of capitalist oppression is a benefit, then anyone who isn't being exacted directly by the state is "benefiting".

In prisons, are inmates not in solitary confinement "privileged"? Do house slaves benefit from slavery? There's historical evidence that some believed they did. But in a non-relative sense, no slave "benifits" from their exploitation - why would this not hold for other forms of exploitation such as capitalist wage-labor?

No workers "benefit" from this economic system which relies on (general as well as specific) oppression and suppression of the population. The ways and degree to which people are oppressed vary but no-one benefits as workers in a system which cheats you out of the wealth you create.

"What are normal conditions for capitalism?" you ask. There is no "normal state" - there is only the momentary and constantly in flux balance of forces within the capitalist society. Obviously the capitalists have the advantage in this balance most of the time, but if there was never any struggle, then there would be no need of bourgeois rights or "privileges". Frankly I think your argument presents the working class as passive recipients of oppression - geared more towards analysis than figuring out action and strategy for liberation.


Certainly, white workers do need to fight alongside the POC/third world/colonized for the abolition of the prison industrial complex, the defeat of world imperialism, etc. - and yet they don't.But why fight something they benefit from? On the other hand, if they don't benefit from it in the end, but aren't currently fighting it - why do you seem to fatalistically assume this is a set condition? What does it mean that even people most impacted by racist systems aren't currently fighting against it - does that mean we must also fatalistically assume that no struggle can ever happen against racism?


The white workers organizations are more interested in improving working conditions for prison guards, or in subsidies to first world manufacturing, or whatever. Why is this? What white worker's organizations? Prison-guard unions?

What organizations anywhere are in a sustained struggle against prisons on a class basis?


Shouldn't this be subject of some sort of materialist analysis,That there are no white working class organizations fighting racism or prisons? Ok. Well that analysis should also be in the context where there are no black working class organizations fighting systemic racism either.

There's little struggle anywhere. However, when we look back in US history to periods where there was struggle against racism, what do we see. That through struggles for liberation from oppression, both working class issues connected to this oppression come out and there is the possibility of the targeted and oppressed group winning allies to their struggles. In addition, in economic struggles we often see that the ability of workers to begin to challenge sexism or racism for example has played an important role in if that economic struggle advances or not.


instead of suggesting that it's a product of subjective racism that can just be educated away? I don't know how you got this from my argument. In fact this is what I was criticizing as a tendency of Privilege Theory.


Shouldn't white workers "give up" (which is to say, enter in to struggle that will, inevitably, fundamentally undermine) their privileged relationship vis-a-vis the state and capital?How would it undermine the position of white workers? It would strengthen it as all other historical periods of struggle demonstrate.

Red Scares, union-busting, and the KKK have always come together just as rising class struggle and momentum has also tended to be connected with struggles of liberation.

Your argument is the same argument of the racists: that less oppression and control of X group will hurt white working class people. How is privilage theory a challenge to white supremacy when it seems to agree with the central premise?


Or do you imagine communism as the realization of the American dream (of the prosperous suburban worker with a BBQ) on a global level? Clearly this proposition is deeply problematic.:rolleyes:All strawmen are deeply problematic.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

:rolleyes:All strawmen are deeply problematic.

Well, clarify then - you've said that the white working class shouldn't have to give up any of its privilage (or rather, its innate rights which are being denied to the rest of the population). If you don't mean the material affluence of first-world white workers, what do you mean? I appologize if I've misunderstood.

[blake 3:17]

I was going to suggest to folks who were interested in The Wages of Whiteness to also look out for Defying Dixie which chronicles the role of the radical Left in the Southern US Black freedom struggle during the 1920s,30s, and 40s.

Black Communists were often the real vanguard in fighting racism, capitalism, and fascism.

On Defying Dixie: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/796978.Defying_Dixie

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, clarify then - you've said that the white working class shouldn't have to give up any of its privilage (or rather, its innate rights which are being denied to the rest of the population).

Well the straw-man comment was directed at your claim that I saw "the american dream" as communism.

But as far as "giving up privilage" - well if you mean that white workers shouldn't be alone in being able to drive down the street without being treated as guilty by cops, then yes, whites should give up the "privialge" of being the only group not subject to racist systems and policies and the daily attitudes that stem from these material structures of racism. But IMO that's a strange and akward way of saying (my argument) that we should have specific focus on fights against the specific forms of oppression that impact workers (and generally also extend to members of that oppressed group from different classes - though this impact is experienced and delt with differently based on the class position of people in the oppressed group) and we need to win whatever working class (white or not) forces that are around us to fighting against these oppression as well.

If we look at the observable inequalities in housing and the effect of the crisis on forclosures, would we say that it is a privilage for, say, 10% of white people to loose their homes or be underwater with their mortague compared to 15-20% of blacks? Certaintly it is relativly better odds, but I can't see how anyone would find lossing 5% of employment or 10% of homes to be a "benifit". Rather, and again, the only "benifit" is not being subject to the extra-hardships brought about from racism or sexism or islamophobia or whatnot. So it's not that we'd want to see white unemployement go up, but rather if people are going to be fired that it can not be on a racist basis - just winning that fight would be a step towards potentially then challenging their ability to fire anyone without a fight. So the problem as I see it isn't that white workers ONLY lost 10% of homes, but that workers are loosing homes because of the system and compounding that, specific groups of people are even more targeted and oppressed.

I'd also argue that it's in the interests of white workers to fight with black or latino workers against the specific racism involved in housing and forclosures both because in the larger sense we need a class movement with full involvement of workers of various backgrounds, but also for the more immediate reason that ideologically racism has been used to justify this massive robbery by the banks and the system: well too many (black) people tried to buy things they couldn't afford. As long as the racist targeting of black workers by banks for sub-prime loans and such is blamed on black people themselves, then no one will be able to put up a decent or strong push-back against forclosures.

So if our goal is to get rid of benifits and "privilage" then is our goal not to get rid of racist stop and frisk policies, but to make sure the NYPD also stops lots of white workers and send them to jail for no reason as well? Or is it to get rid of the racist policing policies and ultimately the whole racist war on drugs which is the structural keystone for contemporary racism in the US today?

A class-based fight against the racist policies of the Justice System or in housing or jobs will lead many white workers to oppose these attempts on the basis that they would see fighting disproportionate levels of forclosures as meaning a higher percentage of white homeowners would loose their homes. But this is an example racist attitudes, not a reflection of true "benifits" (since in this example, the overall percentage of forclosures would be the same, just the specific people would change). To accept that it is better for more blacks to loose employment to whites is to accept racist ideas but also to accept that there is no alternative to the bosses plans to fight for and so "whites" as a group should just fight against other groups for the crumbs. Subjectivly that might make things temporarily better for the group siding with oppressive tendencies, but objectivly the class has not put up any kind of resistance to the bosses, but some have activly accomodated it - they are betraying the working class on two counts. In immigration for example, if native workers support deportation for all non-naturalized immigrants or even just undocumented immigrants (if this were even possible and the ruling class actually did this) then maybe subjectivly for the native workers there would be a smaller labor pool, but what happens in the next crisis when the scapegats are taken out of the equation - workers have not built anything to resist the ruling class, in fact they have only acted to strengthen their ability to oppress people sucessfully.

And further because of the way racism was used in home-loans etc, any reform forced on the banks or the system from below by working class blacks/latinos or a multi-racial class movement would undobtedly also have to address the systematic ways in which banks did this which would also end up making it harder for white people (who may not have been targeted by these policies, but got caught up in it)to be given bad loans. Or in the immigration example, while immigrants themselves are not a problem objectivly for the class, their second class status does help employers to drive down wages overall by making workers compete with a sector of the class that has no rights or ability to organize legally. But again, workers who are native born can accomodate to the ruling class which will end up with modest results (on their terms of nativism and "saving native jobs") but not create any way for the class to fight for itself or they can actually fight (immigrant and native labor) for increased labor rights and access which would not only help immigrants win parity in pay and union rights but would also negate this material divide in rights which would end the ability of the bosses to use repressed labor sources to drive down wages in general. There would be the opposite effect IMO, a stronger possibility for workers to put up a fight.

Or, as a negative example, the poll-tax and segregationist policies were sold to poor whites as a counter to "black domination" but these policies also ended up surpressing the poor white vote and the mobility of poor rural whites too - though obviously not in a targeted and direct way. So while whites might have felt that they were being "privilaged" and "white rule" was being ensured, it was only the rule of white rural elietes which was actually ensured and strengthened. The same argument goes for the "New Jim Crow" of the War on Drugs today - while these policies and structures were built with racist arguments (Willie Horton myths of sociopathic blacks in urban 'jungles') and built as a new system of control directed mainly at poor blacks, aside from prison guards, white workers who supported such things have hurt themselves indirectly and dimished overall class power in the US and helped placed a gaint weight around our collective necks.

So far from "benifiting" from US racism, I think historically and overall the whole US working class, which a large chuch is white, has suffered and been weakened by the sucesses of oppressive structures against blacks and women and the ideological arguments connected to that oppression.


If you don't mean the material affluence of first-world white workers, what do you mean? I appologize if I've misunderstood.

In the US 40% of the population have no wealth at the end of the day (.2 or 3% of the wealth in the US) while this is most definatly disproportionalty black and latino workers (and unemployed workers), this is also a sizeable chunk of the white working class too. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by material affluence of white workers since for the most part they may have more material wealth relative to people in other countries and relative to targeted oppresseg groups domestically, but not when compared to the wealth they produce which is controlled by a tiny fraction of the so-called 1%. It's like if you traveled to the 1960s and told people you made $10 an hour - they might think that's a lot and relative to their wages it would be, but relative to the national wealth created in 2012 and 1960s, their lower wage would have actually represented a larger share of the wealth they created. So wages are relative and the wealth that US workers have today is comperable to the wealth workers in the US had before the New Deal. This still may be better than in some parts of the world in general, but it's low expectations and a misunderstanding of how wealth is really divided in the US to say that US workers are "affluent". Or I don't know maybe I just live in Oakland but it seems pretty apparent to me that the US working class is not really living comfortably; rather we are scratching by or if we are more towards the missnamed "middle class" end of the class (and probably disproportionately white) we are probably in debt with no light at the end of the tunnel.

So in short, I don't see the problem being "benifits" rather that we have too few and specifically there are people who are systematically oppressed and denied these rights or whatnot. Maybe this is a semantic argument, but the idea of having less benifits just dosn't make sense to me: our goal should be to fight to make sure that there isn't racial or sexual oppression or inequality in how bourgoise rights, employment, and so on are applied - our goal should be eliminating the inequality of "benifits" not worrying about those who get those rights already. When that is possible then not only is there more of a chance of a more unitied class struggle, but it will be possible to fight for more "benifits" in the sohort-term and ultimately all power in society.

[blake 3:17]

I was going to suggest Defying Dixie as an interesting and positive exploration of race, class, and socialist politics to help get over this circular impasse.

I found the book very moving, and really explored a very significant part of American life which has been terribly ignored.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/796978.Defying_Dixie