Somewhat unpopular opinion: the "white privilege" theory is usually useless

[Skyhilist]

I hear this "white privilege" theory often talked about and discussed as an issue of what would seem like the utmost importance, usually by fellow anarchists. However, after actually examining this theory in detail, I think it's generally pretty useless, whether it's true or not.

First of all, it doesn't always hold true. For example, my father is white and grew up in rural Pennsylvania. Although his dad (my grandpa) worked long day shifts and barely ever got to see him, his family was still very poor. So much so that he could not even afford to have a functioning bathroom inside of the house while he was growing up and had to use a much cheaper sort of portable one outside of the house, even during cold winters. Clearly my fathers family wasn't getting ahead in life (at least not significantly) due to the actions of slave-owning whites in the south. So clearly, the theory is flawed, at least in some cases. It would be stupid to point a finger at poor and economically UNprivileged whites and say "you got ahead because you're white!" as many "white privilege" theorists do, even if this is not an ultimately sound representation of the ideology.

I wont deny that it does hold true in some cases. I mean clearly it does. For example a white middle class family in the south might have inherited a bigger house than the house that a black middle class family has, despite working just as much. So it does have an application in at least some cases. That I'll concede.

However, while it does have an application, it holds absolutely no moral value as a theory. Lets say for example that I am a recipient of this "white privilege". As a middle class citizen what am I supposed to do about it? Go back in time and tell my ancestors to stop enslaving people? Clearly this is something that I wouldn't be able to control (unlike racism), so what's the use in pointing the finger at me? Having ancestors who supported slavery doesn't mean their descendants support slavery. So what's the use in criticizing and demonizing them for their privilege based on their genetics? That makes no more sense than stereotyping blacks or gays based on their genetics and it is also discriminatory. I mean the vast majority of the assumed recipients of this privilege are middle class. What do they want whites to do for fucks sake? Pay taxes for being white? Things like that would be racist in and of themselves. Should we also ostracize Mongolians because Genghis Khan was a ruthless warlord? I mean this king of analysis is really useless, even if it does hold true.

Of course there are some bourgeoisie recipients of "white privilege" and they do have control over the fact that they continue to remain bourgeoisie and exploit the middle class. This however is a very slim minority and not the man group that "white privilege" theory is directed towards in the first place. And really, just saying "shame on you!" essentially towards a bunch of bourgeoisie because they're white isn't going to change anything. There are far more efficient ways in pointing out the flaws of the bourgeoisie and undermining their class privilege.

In conclusion:
l0tzZ__Z5Qw
Your thoughts?

[Yuppie Grinder]

The argument is not that working poor white people are not oppressed, it's that bourgeois society is inherently white supremacist. Power relationships across race and class lines are intersectional.

[Skyhilist]

The argument is not that working poor white people are not oppressed, it's that bourgeois society is inherently white supremacist. Power relationships across race and class lines are intersectional.

I wouldn't say that to be necessarily true either. Maybe in Western countries yes, but I mean in many areas of the globe the majority of the bourgeoisie aren't even white. But one of my points was though that even if this is what the actual theory states, this is not how believers in the ideology project it at all. Many simply use the theory to stereotype whites in general.

[cynicles]

Anecdotes don't really destroy this theory when statistics reinforce it, same thing for male and hetero privilege.

[Sasha]

there always exception to the rule, but in general straight, white, non-handicapped males enjoy a distinct societal advantage (ie privilige), it (being white, male, etc) is nothing to be ashamed of but you do need to be conscious of it and incorporate that consiousness into your behaviour and in your social dynamics. To not take this advantage society unfairly gives you for granted.
to put in horribly blunt terms, think of you being forced to run a 100 meter dash against someone extremely obese, sure you can pretent this is a completely fair race but if your a decent person you will give them a good head start.

[Skyhilist]

Anecdotes don't really destroy this theory when statistics reinforce it, same thing for male and hetero privilege.

Yes, statistics enforce that white privilege does exist (at least when you generalize the entire West with statistics or entire western countries).

That white privilege in general doesn't exist though isn't what I'm trying to argue at all. I'm trying to argue that it's not always applicable and usually holds no moral value.

[Skyhilist]

there always exception to the rule, but in general straight, white, non-handicapped males enjoy a distinct societal advantage (ie privilige), it (being white, male, etc) is nothing to be ashamed of but you do need to be conscious of it and incorporate that consiousness into your behaviour and in your social dynamics. To not take this advantage society unfairly gives you for granted.
to put in horribly blunt terms, think of you being forced to run a 100 meter dash against someone extremely obese, sure you can pretent this is a completely fair race but if your a decent person you will give them a good head start.

Yes, absolutely, I can agree with that. Everyone of course has the responsibility to treat others fairly, and yes white privilege does exist often times. What I'm mainly referring to is the people who try to make (non-racist) whites in general blameworthy for having privilege, even when it sometimes isn't applicable. But I mean any reasonable person should know to treat their comrades reasonably without any theory telling them that they ought to do so. I don't think white privilege theory has really contributed at all to whether or not whites in general treat other races fairly, and I don't think it will.

[Decolonize The Left]

I hear this "white privilege" theory often talked about and discussed as an issue of what would seem like the utmost importance, usually by fellow anarchists. However, after actually examining this theory in detail, I think it's generally pretty useless, whether it's true or not.

I hear that you think that. Hopefully by the end of my reply you'll understand why your position is incoherent and totally detached from reality.


First of all, it doesn't always hold true. For example, my father is white and grew up in rural Pennsylvania. Although his dad (my grandpa) worked long day shifts and barely ever got to see him, his family was still very poor. So much so that he could not even afford to have a functioning bathroom inside of the house while he was growing up and had to use a much cheaper sort of portable one outside of the house, even during cold winters. Clearly my fathers family wasn't getting ahead in life (at least not significantly) due to the actions of slave-owning whites in the south. So clearly, the theory is flawed, at least in some cases. It would be stupid to point a finger at poor and economically UNprivileged whites and say "you got ahead because you're white!" as many "white privilege" theorists do, even if this is not an ultimately sound representation of the ideology.

Alright - one white dude to another. Not only was my dad poorer than your dad, so I win the proletarian realness argument, but neither case is relevant as exceptions do not disprove a rule.

President Obama is black, and the presidency is the most powerful position in the world - does this mean that blacks are the most powerful race in the world? No. Black people still suffer from systematic racism even though a black guy is in charge of the system. White people still have privilege even though white people are poor.


I wont deny that it does hold true in some cases. I mean clearly it does. For example a white middle class family in the south might have inherited a bigger house than the house that a black middle class family has, despite working just as much. So it does have an application in at least some cases. That I'll concede.

Actually, it has an application in all cases, even in the above exception to the rule.... the rule still applies. And the reason is because of context. Take your grandpa who worked hella hard. Just imagine if he was black! He not only would have had to work real hard but also deal with racism and probably not get as much money for his work. I.e. take away the privilege and life gets even harder.


However, while it does have an application, it holds absolutely no moral value as a theory. Lets say for example that I am a recipient of this "white privilege". As a middle class citizen what am I supposed to do about it? Go back in time and tell my ancestors to stop enslaving people? Clearly this is something that I wouldn't be able to control (unlike racism), so what's the use in pointing the finger at me? Having ancestors who supported slavery doesn't mean their descendants support slavery. So what's the use in criticizing and demonizing them for their privilege based on their genetics? That makes no more sense than stereotyping blacks or gays based on their genetics and it is also discriminatory. I mean the vast majority of the assumed recipients of this privilege are middle class. What do they want whites to do for fucks sake? Pay taxes for being white? Things like that would be racist in and of themselves. Should we also ostracize Mongolians because Genghis Khan was a ruthless warlord? I mean this king of analysis is really useless, even if it does hold true.

Well I guess here you're saying that you don't want to be blamed for having privilege. I don't see anyone blaming you... I know lots of people who are not white/male/heterosexual and they don't come up to me and point a finger blaming me for being who I am.


Of course there are some bourgeoisie recipients of "white privilege" and they do have control over the fact that they continue to remain bourgeoisie and exploit the middle class. This however is a very slim minority and not the man group that "white privilege" theory is directed towards in the first place. And really, just saying "shame on you!" essentially towards a bunch of bourgeoisie because they're white isn't going to change anything. There are far more efficient ways in pointing out the flaws of the bourgeoisie and undermining their class privilege.

Most black folks aren't mad at white people for being white.
Most women aren't mad at men for being men.
Most non-heterosexual people aren't mad at heteros for being such.

What they are mad at, and which ultimately proves your little essay wrong, is that they are victims of underprivilege - read: discrimination. They aren't mad at you for being white, you can't help that; they are mad that white people are the norm. They aren't mad at you for being a man; they are mad that men are the norm. They aren't mad that you willingly choose to have sex with a woman; they are mad that heterosexual sex is the norm.

The norm = privilege.


In conclusion:
l0tzZ__Z5Qw
Your thoughts?

You sound like a white dude who's totally scared that people are going to be mad at you for some shit which has no relationship to anything in the real world. So you make posts like this where you point fingers at everyone so they don't point imaginary fingers at you.

You want to know how to deal with your white privilege?

Accept that it exists and notice it where it rises in your life. Then do your best to account for it within your own actions. It's called being responsible.

Good luck.

[radical_subjectivity]

It's not a thing that you "do something" about as a white person. Just because I can't change my being white doesn't mean I get to throw up my hands and say it's not a valid idea. Articulating a theory of white privilege is aimed at an awareness which leads to social and institutional change as well as a racial self-consciousness where I check my own thoughts and actions. Nothing more than that.

[Skyhilist]

Alright - one white dude to another. Not only was my dad poorer than your dad, so I win the proletarian realness argument, but neither case is relevant as exceptions do not disprove a rule.

Fair enough, but when there are so many exceptions, it's hardly a good rule at all. Here's another example, even a fairly large one that takes place in America. The percent of the top 5% (in income) that is Asian is 1.35 times the percentage of Asians in the total population, while percent of the top 5% that is white is only 1.21 times the percentage of whites in the total population. Are Asians more successful than white because they are Asian? If so, why is there no "Asian privilege" theory applicable to the western world? If not, than how do you explain these statistics? And why can't that explanation also be used for whites?


President Obama is black, and the presidency is the most powerful position in the world - does this mean that blacks are the most powerful race in the world? No. Black people still suffer from systematic racism even though a black guy is in charge of the system. White people still have privilege even though white people are poor.

Whites wouldn't be the most powerful race either if they didn't so widely practice the damning act of imperialism. Unfortunately, that's what gave whites more power historically and why they've kept it. White people still have objects or things they're inherited from slavery times, so if this is what you mean by privilege, than sure. Let me ask you this though: can you find any studies that have shown that blacks and whites in developed countries with equal IQs are not equally likely to find work requiring high-IQ-like intelligence, have higher salaries, etc., with opportunities favoring whites? If so, then please point it out to me.


Actually, it has an application in all cases, even in the above exception to the rule.... the rule still applies. And the reason is because of context. Take your grandpa who worked hella hard. Just imagine if he was black! He not only would have had to work real hard but also deal with racism and probably not get as much money for his work. I.e. take away the privilege and life gets even harder.

Again, there are so many exceptions, it's hardly a good rule at all. In Asia for example, a (non-expatriate) white who lives there is not more likely to make more money than a non-white. Keep in mind, Asia makes up half the population of the entire world. That's an awfully huge exception. Of course these countries are exploited, but it's not because they're non-white. The bourgeoisie would just happily exploit labor with these countries even if they were white. Correlation doesn't equal causation.


Well I guess here you're saying that you don't want to be blamed for having privilege. I don't see anyone blaming you... I know lots of people who are not white/male/heterosexual and they don't come up to me and point a finger blaming me for being who I am.

People following a "white privilege" ideology generalize and point blame at all whites all the time. Take the photo attached to this post for example, which I saw on my facebook yesterday. I didn't alter it at all and this is literally how it was posted. It generalizes all whites coming from and is inherently racist in and of itself. I see stuff like this all the time from supporters of the "white privilege" theory.



Most black folks aren't mad at white people for being white.
Most women aren't mad at men for being men.
Most non-heterosexual people aren't mad at heteros for being such.

Of course. I don't really see what this proves though.


What they are mad at, and which ultimately proves your little essay wrong, is that they are victims of underprivilege - read: discrimination. They aren't mad at you for being white, you can't help that; they are mad that white people are the norm. They aren't mad at you for being a man; they are mad that men are the norm. They aren't mad that you willingly choose to have sex with a woman; they are mad that heterosexual sex is the norm.

The norm = privilege.

Sometimes they are victims of underprivilege, yes. Gays certainly do have a case. They're are very large groups pushing to make sure they don't have equal rights. In 1st world countries, it's much rarer to see the same thing.


You sound like a white dude who's totally scared that people are going to be mad at you for some shit which has no relationship to anything in the real world. So you make posts like this where you point fingers at everyone so they don't point imaginary fingers at you.

I'm pointing fingers at a theory, not individuals. I'm not scared so much as I am annoyed with the constant generalizations I hear about whites and how we're automatically blameworthy for the world's problems. I see these racist generalizations posted by supporters of the "white privilege" theory all the time.



You want to know how to deal with your white privilege?

Accept that it exists and notice it where it rises in your life. Then do your best to account for it within your own actions. It's called being responsible.

Good luck.

Care to give an example of how this is applicable? What am I supposed to do, walk up to someone of a different race and just say "Sorry I have privilege, here's a cookie?" I mean can you actually give me a real situation where I can apply this so called theory to really life and act more ethically as a result of this?

[Skyhilist]

It's not a thing that you "do something" about as a white person. Just because I can't change my being white doesn't mean I get to throw up my hands and say it's not a valid idea. Articulating a theory of white privilege is aimed at an awareness which leads to social and institutional change as well as a racial self-consciousness where I check my own thoughts and actions. Nothing more than that.

So if you can't change white privilege, than what's the moral value of the idea? Not being racist or favoring your own race is something that any non-racist would do in life already, regardless of any theory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anecdotes don't really destroy this theory when statistics reinforce it, same thing for male and hetero privilege.

I don't know, I've never heard of "Asian privilege", but according to the census figures I've looked at, Asian people in the USA have less of a poverty rate than white people do (and the poverty rate is something that a lot of PT folks go by). They have a lower rate of incarceration too IIRC.

But of course structural inequality was something that was long identified and campaigned against by the left. "Privilege theory" is a relatively recent development by comparison.

[#FF0000]

I don't know, I've never heard of "Asian privilege", but according to the census figures I've looked at, Asian people in the USA have less of a poverty rate than white people do (and the poverty rate is something that a lot of PT folks go by). They have a lower rate of incarceration too IIRC.

If we're talking about in the US, there's kind of a reason for that. A whole lot of Asian immigrants were wealthy and brought a good deal of wealth over here with them.

A whole lot of them were also dirt poor, too, and there really isn't/wasn't much of a social ladder for Asian-Americans. If a family got here poor, they generally stayed poor, from my understanding.

But more to the topic, I really don't know the details and specifics of privilege theory, but it seems like a really basic truth that white dudes have a lot less baggage to deal with than women or black people.

I remember a white friend of mine who got pulled over with adderall outside of a prescription bottle and in plain view, then failed a field sobriety test, and was still let go by the cop with a warning (the cop even gave him his drugs back).

Then I remember another time me and my friends were caught loitering with alcohol in plain view (not even sure if that's a crime where I'm from), and the cop who came up to tell us to fuck off went straight for the only black kid in the group, who wasn't even drinking.

[l'Enfermé]

Since Asians were mentioned, what about Jewish "privilege"? Just imagine all the accusations of anti-semitism if people started talking about "Jewish privilege"(since Jews are the single most privileged demographic in the United States - and not just economically, but politically also, Jews make up 1.7 percent of the population but 14 percent of the Senate)

[Os Cangaceiros]

But more to the topic, I really don't know the details and specifics of privilege theory, but it seems like a really basic truth that white dudes have a lot less baggage to deal with than women or black people.

I remember a white friend of mine who got pulled over with adderall outside of a prescription bottle and in plain view, then failed a field sobriety test, and was still let go by the cop with a warning (the cop even gave him his drugs back).

Then I remember another time me and my friends were caught loitering with alcohol in plain view (not even sure if that's a crime where I'm from), and the cop who came up to tell us to fuck off went straight for the only black kid in the group, who wasn't even drinking.

I think that in the matter of criminal justice, there's probably a strong argument to be made for white people having advantages (not gonna use the word "privilege" ;)). When I was on probation I quit my job (which was a violation of my probation), and I also missed at least one meeting with my probation officer (another violation of my probation). I've often thought that if I had been black or latino, there's a good chance they would've revoked me...

Although ultimately I think the biggest factor was the fact that I paid all of the extortion money that the state wanted from me.

[Thelonious]

I think it's generally pretty useless, whether it's true or not.
First of all, it doesn't always hold true.
I wont deny that it does hold true in some cases.
even if it does hold true.:confused:
I am black and confused.

[Homo Songun]

[OP shouldn't use that Minor Threat song to bolster his argument, it comes off a little whiney and I believe Ian Mackaye has said it is a mistake to take its meaning in that way :cool:]

Lenin said, "The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true". What I think Lenin may have meant by this was that, in comparison to all other economic theories, Marx's has a unique explanatory power: he was the first person to show that societies are dependant on the mode of production, and further that the mode of production (as in capitalism for instance) is contingent on relations between individuals, rather than relations between between commodities. But it wasn't just that Marx created a novel theory. As Althusser says, "Marx ‘opened up’ for scientific knowledge a new ‘continent’, that of history – just as Thales opened up the ‘continent’ of mathematics for scientific knowledge, and Galileo opened up the ‘continent’ of physical nature for scientific knowledge."

White privilege theory on the other hand is surely novel, but does not have any unique explanatory power. In the first place, it only addresses societies with white people in them. But there is a more important problem in my view. Set aside for a moment whether it is actually true or not. The problem is that it doesn't have say anything to say that can't be said in simpler, less jargony terms. For example, "don't be a racist", or even "don't be an asshole", or more simply, "be conscientious". Broadly speaking these were self evident truths long before the whole privilege craze leaked out of academia into the activist scene. The problem is then, why do we need privilege theory? Following Occam's Razor, if a certain thing can be described by two different causes, either (1) racism, or (2) following McIntosh, half of the population having an "invisible knapsack" filled with the unearned wages of whiteness, or maleness, or whatever, it is going to be the simpler explanation that is the correct one. In other words, plain old racist oppression. But that would mean those academics would need to come up some other niche marketing scheme to get tenure...:laugh:

As an aside, to say that US or Canadian society as a whole, today, relies on white supremacy in the fundamental, economic terms that Marx likes to talk about just rings hollow to me. The Old South certainly was in its mode of production. I think Apartheid South Africa may have been fundamentally white supremacist in that sense too. I understand that there is a whole strata of whites there, that previously relied on a variety of whites-only wealth redistribution measures, that have subsequently been thrown into poverty since the fall of Apartheid.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Take your grandpa who worked hella hard. Just imagine if he was black! He not only would have had to work real hard but also deal with racism and probably not get as much money for his work. I.e. take away the privilege and life gets even harder.


I want to bring this passage to OP's attention again. Can you respond to this? This is the thing about privilege: you get a pass on that particular aspect of your life, even if you get the shit end of other privilege dynamics. I would imagine there are few people here that don't think class is important, but a poor black person faces more hatred from the societies and states on this planet as a whole than a poor white person. This is a fact with specific historical origins.

Look, I'm also from Connecticut, and I inherited some ass-backwards from my hometown too, but you've really got to unlearn that reactionary shit if you're serious about being a revolutionary. Studying anti-racist theory and reading black (and other minority) history can explain the world better, and also offer more thoughtful criticisms of privilege theory, than the hodgepodge of white rage you're posting right now.

[Manic Impressive]

I want to say that I have absolutely no interest in having this debate again, so anyone responding to this post should not expect a reply.

The idea may be the norm on Revleft but popularity does not make something true. The OP should do a search for all the old threads on privilege theory and whiteness theory where it has been taken apart many times. One of the main things you should know is that this does not come from a Marxist analysis of race but a post modernist perspective. Post modernism is really the decadence of theory in my opinion. A bunch of academics with very little to write about coming up with provocative shit simply because they want to make a name for themselves and you know they have to write about something otherwise they could no longer call themselves academics.

The results of this kind of politics only serves to divide the working class further than it already is. Poor white people rightly baulk at the notion they are privileged while living in poverty and non white people in my experience find it all deeply patronizing. So if it's the goal of communists to unite the working class around a common goal and the bourgeois' goal is to foster divisions, whose interests does this really serve?

That's all I've got to say on this matter but here's a couple of articles which might interest the OP.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/46/whiteness.shtml

http://newleftreview.org/II/52/walter-benn-michaels-against-diversity

[Thelonious]

I had to take a deep breath and calm myself before I replied to the original poster.

As a black Latino I feel that I am qualified to reply.

You are white and there are certain subtleties that I experience that you may not, and there are probably certain things that you do that may be perceived as offensive to blacks, you may not even be remotely aware that you do such things. They may be ingrained in your personality, just by dint of the fact that you are a member of a privileged class. This might not be the case, but it most likely is.

Your post made me think of white people who say things like:

"I have never seen any racism in this town."

or

"Driving while black, PLEASE! Just give the cop your license and be polite and everything will be fine."

or

"Come on, white cops don't plant evidence on black people anymore."

[Devrim]

I am actually quite surprised at how much support there is for privilege theory on here. I don't think that it is an ideology with anything at all to offer the working class. I think that it is not at all surprising that ideas like this come out of academia in the country with quite probably the weakest working class in the Western world. That it finds people outside of American academic life who agree with it is more surprising.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't have much sympathy for economic theories of generalised white supremacy, but it is certainly true that racism takes hold against non-whites pretty much all over the globe and whilst the root cause of this isn't economic (anymore, post-slavery), that doesn't mean the outcomes don't lead to economic inequality between whites and non-whites. For instance, the barely-hidden racism against black people in the US relating to drugs offences and the courts in general not only deny african americans their liberty in many cases, but obviously being in jail means you're not out earning money/accumulating savings.

Another important point, however, is that we are really talking about generalised averages, or the median person. The median white person probably has a more privileged economic position in society than the median non-white person, and i'm sure (due to statistical issues of skewness, i.e the existence of people like Bill Gates) that the mean average white person has a significantly more privileged economic position than the mean average non-white person. However, because of this issue of skewness, the majority of white people are not in a privileged position in society, as the third-worldists would have you believe. If you believe there is a labour aristocracy in the developed world, then don't think that it doesn't exclude the overwhelming majority of white people.

So yeah, institutional racism against non-white exists, its roots now are probably more cultural than economic, but it's true to say it has some economic impacts across races. However, this shouldn't lead to a whites vs non-whites type of conclusion, because the overwhelming majority of white people are also poor and, despite differences relating to racism and 'white privilege', white and non-white people have more in common as the proletariat than white workers and white capitalists, or non-white workers and non-white capitalists do.

[Homo Songun]

But why would you say racism doesn't have an economic basis? I know people make jokes about Marxists being economic determinists, but my understanding was always that the concept of whiteness itself has its basis in economic facts.

[Manic Impressive]

But why would you say racism doesn't have an economic basis? I know people make jokes about Marxists being economic determinists, but my understanding was always that the concept of whiteness itself has its basis in economic facts.
I already linked to an article about this

"If, for example, you are looking to promote someone as Head of Sales in your company and you are choosing between a straight white male and a black lesbian, and the latter is in fact a better salesperson than the former, racism, sexism and homophobia may tell you to choose the straight white male but capitalism tells you to go with the black lesbian. Which is to say that, even though some capitalists may be racist, sexist and homophobic, capitalism itself is not."

http://newleftreview.org/II/52/walter-benn-michaels-against-diversity

[Thelonious]

[QUOTE]So yeah, institutional racism against non-white exists, its roots now are probably more cultural than economic, but it's true to say it has some economic impacts across races.

I think these factors (cultural and economic) are so entwined in terms of racism in America that it would be foolish to try and separate them. One is married to the other.

[Homo Songun]

even though some capitalists may be racist, sexist and homophobic, capitalism itself is not.
'capitalism itself is not' -- I'll take your word for it, since I've never found the blueprint for capitalism in the abstract. But I think we are just using different senses of the word "basis". I'm talking about the genocide of native peoples and slavery/sharecropping system, for example. But even if we take modern day capitalism for example, we find it incredibly racialized. I'm incredulous that one couldn't see that the huge majority of the working class globally is not white.

[Skyhilist]

Alright so it seems most of the criticisms directed at me basically point out examples of being racist within society. I wouldn't deny that there are many racists within society, but I don't think that makes the structuring of society inherently racist. That's of course not to defend capitalism. I don't think that fascism or feudalism are automatically racist by design either, but that doesn't make them any better. I will apologize for the perhaps flamboyant and indignant nature of my first post in this thread though. I was extremely fed up with constantly seeing over generalizations towards whites (like the one in the photo I attached) almost every day. I see things that are often times even inherently racist in and of themselves. Even if you don't view that a part of "white privilege" theory, it is something that privilege theorists spread all the time, and it does far more hard than good. I was not trying to suggest that racism does not exist or that whites are not often favored. I was merely trying to state my annoyance with what I see as a highly-flawed theory.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Alright so it seems most of the criticisms directed at me basically point out examples of being racist within society. I wouldn't deny that there are many racists within society, but I don't think that makes the structuring of society inherently racist. That's of course not to defend capitalism. I don't think that fascism or feudalism are automatically racist by design either, but that doesn't make them any better.

You have failed to engage with the real history of capitalist society that would have been completely impossible without genocide and slavery, particularly American capitalist society. The fact that something is not racist in the abstract does not mean that is not racist in the concrete. This is the worst kind of bad philosophy.



I will apologize for the perhaps flamboyant and indignant nature of my first post in this thread though. I was extremely fed up with constantly seeing over generalizations towards whites (like the one in the photo I attached) almost every day. I see things that are often times even inherently racist in and of themselves. Even if you don't view that a part of "white privilege" theory, it is something that privilege theorists spread all the time, and it does far more hard than good. I was not trying to suggest that racism does not exist or that whites are not often favored. I was merely trying to state my annoyance with what I see as a highly-flawed theory.

This indignation is called "white rage". Your white rage plays directly into the hands of racists, and defends the real, historically-rooted white supremacist character of modern-day societies and states on the grounds that they are not "inherently" racist. Apologizing for it doesn't change anything if you're not planning on educating yourself.

You've got a lot of work to do. Personally, I recommend you study what Marxist theory has to say about racism. It's a far better framework than the confused bourgeois ideology you're working with.

[Skyhilist]

You have failed to engage with the real history of capitalist society that would have been completely impossible without genocide and slavery, particularly American capitalist society. The fact that something is not racist in the abstract does not mean that is not racist in the concrete. This is the worst kind of bad philosophy.

The fact that capitalism and racism specifically against non-whites have existed together doesn't mean that capitalism is automatically racist against non-whites. Who's to say that the probability of history developing in a way that caused blacks to be enslaved was any more likely than history developing in a way that caused whites to be enslaved (while still being capitalist). You're basically just equating correlation equal to causation using only two data points: the present, and the beginning of capitalism.


This indignation is called "white rage". Your white rage plays directly into the hands of racists, and defends the real, historically-rooted white supremacist character of modern-day societies and states on the grounds that they are not "inherently" racist. Apologizing for it doesn't change anything if you're not planning on educating yourself.

You've got a lot of work to do. Personally, I recommend you study what Marxist theory has to say about racism. It's a far better framework than the confused bourgeois ideology you're working with.

If you want to call being annoying with obvious anti-white rhetoric (such as "All whites think A, B, C") "white rage" then so be it, I really don't care what you prefer to label it. Obviously that's a distortion of reality, but your labels aren't going to change anything.

I also haven't heard anyone able to explain what an earlier poster said of why we don't consider society automatically "Jewish-supremacist" either or anything like that for other groups that have advantages in America. Being critical of a postmodern theory doesn't make someone automatically pro-bourgeoisie.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

The fact that capitalism and racism specifically against non-whites have existed together doesn't mean that capitalism is automatically racist against non-whites. Who's to say that the probability of history developing in a way that caused blacks to be enslaved was any more likely than history developing in a way that caused whites to be enslaved (while still being capitalist). You're basically just equating correlation equal to causation using only two data points: the present, and the beginning of capitalism.


Again, it doesn't matter if capitalist and anti-black racism are married in the abstract, if they are in reality. Do I need to explain why reality is more important than your imagination?




If you want to call being annoying with obvious anti-white rhetoric (such as "All whites think A, B, C") "white rage" then so be it, I really don't care what you prefer to label it. Obviously that's a distortion of reality, but your labels aren't going to change anything.


Your annoyance is completely detached from the grievously imbalanced racial realities of the United States and of world history. Anti-black racism is far more entrenched in American society and institutions than the Facebook memes mocking people like you who refuse to factor history into your understanding of the world today.



I also haven't heard anyone able to explain what an earlier poster said of why we don't consider society automatically "Jewish-supremacist" either or anything like that for other groups that have advantages in America. Being critical of a postmodern theory doesn't make someone automatically pro-bourgeoisie.

Re "Jewish-supremacist": history, history, history.

I actually hate postmodern theory for the most part, and I think privilege theory is often used as a wedge between the working class and its allies. That being said, you are not simply attacking privilege theory; you seem to outright deny that institutional racism exists. This is a different claim altogether, and that you can't tell them apart speaks volumes about your willingness to lump anti-racist theories together.

Your conclusions are the result of an abstract, isolated bourgeois type of thinking. It doesn't mean you're consciously pro-bourgeoisie, just that you think in the way they've taught you to, and you've come to reactionary conclusions because of it.

Anyway, thanks for the debate. I don't think there's much more productive to be discussed because all of your arguments amount to an appeal to an abstract, ahistorical non-reality that doesn't actually exist anywhere.
I sincerely hope you figure out your issues, become a more nuanced thinker, and stop pitying yourself for being white.

[Decolonize The Left]

I didn't respond to most of your reply because there are ample posts following mine which address your 'argument' in a coherent fashion.

I will, however, respond to the following part of your reply. For context, I originally stated:


You want to know how to deal with your white privilege?

Accept that it exists and notice it where it rises in your life. Then do your best to account for it within your own actions. It's called being responsible.

To which you replied:


Care to give an example of how this is applicable? What am I supposed to do, walk up to someone of a different race and just say "Sorry I have privilege, here's a cookie?" I mean can you actually give me a real situation where I can apply this so called theory to really life and act more ethically as a result of this?

Sure. Here's what I mean, in bullet form for easy comprehension:
- Accept that it exists.
By this I mean that you need to acknowledge that whether you like it or not, you, as a white male, are occupying a position of social, cultural, and economic privilege. In short, just because you're a white dude you got it better than most. Accept it.

- Notice where it arises in your life.
By this I mean that you need to pay attention to this fact in your daily life. So, as an analogous example, you're standing around the proverbial water-cooler with bunch of co-workers on a break. There are three women and yourself and you approach while they are having a conversation. No one asks you your opinion but you interject and provide it anyway and they all stop what they are doing and listen to you. This is an example of privilege. Patriarchy has established the norm that when men talk they get listened to by women because it has also established the norm that a man's opinion (regardless of how it is delivered) is important.
Another example which Thelonious provided, this time involving race:
You and some friends are kicking it in a cafe when someone brings up racism and your friend says "man, I haven't witnessed any racism around here." Another friend points out that racial profiling still exists and the first friend replies "I haven't seen any. If I was black I'd just do what the law says and give the cop my license and follow directions." The latter friend replies "but what if he planted evidence in order to get an arrest?" The first friend replies "that sort of shit doesn't happen anymore man." In this situation, a group of white people are talking about something to which they have no actual claim: the experiences of black people within a racist society. This, in itself, is privilege.

- Do your best to account for it within your own actions.
I'll use the examples above.
In the first example, you wouldn't simply interject your own opinion on top of other people talking because you understand that you all have an equal claim the the dialogue at hand. Hence you would wait until an appropriate time to bring your opinions to the discussion.
In the second example, you would inform your friends that the whole discussion at hand is not only potentially insulting to black people, but also demonstrates the privilege of white people on the whole. The ability to dismiss another person's perspective and experience is a privileged position.

Ask yourself: If I wasn't a white dude, what would I want white dudes to do about this shit? If I was a black lesbian, what would I want white dudes to do about the racism, sexism, and sexual-orientation discrimination I experience?

You don't need to go out and play the martyr for all white people, profusely apologizing to anyone who's not white for all of history. That's self-indulgent and insulting. But what you do need to do is accept the facts and deal with it within your life as best you can.

[Lynx]

Sometimes facts are both uncomfortable and useless.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm incredulous that one couldn't see that the huge majority of the working class globally is not white.

But by itself that says nothing, since 100 years ago this wasn't the case. One of the main reasons that distorts really what you're trying to say (and I do understand the point you're trying to make) is that the majority of the 'new' working class has come from India and China, non-white countries. So really that's more demographics than racism.

I'm not sure i'd go as far as saying that capitalism isn't a racist system, but the racism is different from the sort of genetic racism employed by the likes of the far-right, who believe that any white person is inherently better than any non-white person. It's the sort of racism that is more of a prejudice racism, with its origins in feudal slavery, the great divergence and foreign relations. In the advance to accumulate capital, it of course helped to have slaves. The slaves were largely non-white, the slaveowners largely white. So perhaps yes there was historically some economic basis to racism, but today it seems to be less so.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There's some weird ahistorical readings of capitalism in thIs thread. When the world's premier capitalist power continues to imprison black people en masse for use as forced labour, claiming that white supremacy is not deeply enmeshed with capitalism is just … weird.

[commieathighnoon]

I don't think its really credible to claim post-Reagan incarceration rates were 'demand-driven' by the pursuit for unfree labor.

And no, I'm not a white guy (Chicano here).

[Raúl Duke]

I don't know much about this theory, except what I could glean on tumblr (which is probably problematic, some may be misapplied).

One issue is how the discourse of the theory is presented (at least on tumblr) as 'universal' but in reality I only find it specific to certain countries. For example, I'm a white latino from Puerto Rico. While there's some racism, I find it less than in the US. Being white or not doesn't seem to bring much of anything special if you live in Puerto Rico that much as what I've experienced in the US. I don't think this "privileged theory" works much over there except maybe in a historical sense to understand why many of the wealthier people on the island tend to be white. In PR, the main issue is classism, and there are substantial numbers of white, black, etc Puerto Ricans who are poor.

Imagine in places, particularly Asia as an example, where whites are a minority. I don't think this theory works for shit there.

The theory is very US-centric in my opinion, although it could be applied at some level in other European/North-American countries.

Here in the US, since I'm white, people assume I'm American usually. This means I do not face the same discrimination as other latinos do, just on the basis of how I look. This could entail other things, I might be more likely to be hired for a job, the police may treat me differently, etc. All on the basis of the way I look, the color and features of my skin. So there's some truth to this theory.

A lot of the problems with this theory is in its presentation and in a way its logic. It takes something and posits its negative/reversal. The discourse instead focuses about how 'privileged' a group of people is rather than how un-justly another group is treated. It makes a "negative/indirect" into a "thing." Either way, it's talking about the same thing. In a way, this theory doesn't really present anything new, just re-frames the whole discourse. At least that's one impression I got.

I don't find the language/discourse in 'privilege' theory good for the left but I guess it can be useful in bringing certain new insights that could help the left combat racism.

[#FF0000]

I am actually quite surprised at how much support there is for privilege theory on here. I don't think that it is an ideology with anything at all to offer the working class. I think that it is not at all surprising that ideas like this come out of academia in the country with quite probably the weakest working class in the Western world. That it finds people outside of American academic life who agree with it is more surprising.

why

[Devrim]

why

Why what?

Devrim

[Aurora]

claiming that white supremacy is not deeply enmeshed with capitalism is just … weird.
I doubt anyone will deny that racism exists but the historic tendency of capitalism is to reduce all to the condition of wage-labourer and in doing so capitalism abolished slavery and brought women out of the home for example.

Just a thought that came to mind but in other areas the interests of individual capitalists conflict with the interests of capitalism as a whole and that may be the case here, while capitalism historically advances equality the individual capitalists have an interest in stirring up racism to break apart workers solidarity, push down wages etc
That would explain why the historic course of capitalism wins out over time while particularly in economic crises, where labour is abundant and there's a need for an organised attack on the proletariat, racism flourishes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I doubt anyone will deny that racism exists but the historic tendency of capitalism is to reduce all to the condition of wage-labourer and in doing so capitalism abolished slavery and brought women out of the home for example.

That seems like a pretty mechanical reading of some pretty complex events. Arguably the abolition of slavery had a lot to do with the self-organization and widespread resistance of slaves, rivalries between rival capitalist factions, etc. Plus, with the end of reconstruction, the klan, etc. it's pretty obvious that capitalism didn't free black people except formally. The entrance of women into "the workplace" (like the home isn't a workplace?) is, similarly more complex than "the progressive character of capitalism".


Just a thought that came to mind but in other areas the interests of individual capitalists conflict with the interests Mzof capitalism as a whole and that may be the case here, while capitalism historically advances equality the individual capitalists have an interest in stirring up racism to break apart workers solidarity, push down wages etc
That would explain why the historic course of capitalism wins out over time while particularly in economic crises, where labour is abundant and there's a need for an organised attack on the proletariat, racism flourishes.

Again, what might be abstractly true for capitalists here doesn't hold water in terms of dealing with capitalists as a real historical class. Anyway, insofar as white supremacy has proven an effective tool for labour management, it has generally served the interests of capitalists generally.

[Rowan Duffy]

So yeah, institutional racism against non-white exists, its roots now are probably more cultural than economic, but it's true to say it has some economic impacts across races. However, this shouldn't lead to a whites vs non-whites type of conclusion, because the overwhelming majority of white people are also poor and, despite differences relating to racism and 'white privilege', white and non-white people have more in common as the proletariat than white workers and white capitalists, or non-white workers and non-white capitalists do.

First, I'm not a fan of privilege theory at all, basically for the reasons the op stated: that it does not appear to have any function as an analytic theory. That on the whole certain groups have better probability distributions for outcomes is a pretty obvious fact, and is undeniable. However, as the saying goes "Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it". I don't see much concrete suggestions for overcoming problems coming out of privilege theory. Feelings of guilt really don't get us very far.

I very much doubt that racism can be squarely placed as mostly cultural. If we look at the trajectory of quality of life for blacks through the 1970s we see a period with rising incomes and greater political freedoms during a period in which the cultural racism was much higher than it is to day on most scales. Many surveys have been done on racism and peoples self reported beliefs about blacks, inter-race marriage, genetic competence, and on a host of other measures, people hold much less racist ideas now than in the 1970s in the US. Yet there has actually been a deterioration of the quality of life, increase in incarceration while all of these cultural ideas are changing. Something is clearly wrong with the idea that these problems are merely subjective.

There have been studies which demonstrate the ones social networks are good predictors of how likely you are to succeed. Successful people get lots of breaks. The more rich people you have in your social network the better your chances of getting ahead are. Black Americans rarely have very many people with money in their social networks, and thereby have a high probability on missing out on opportunities. So not only are you likely to start with less capital, you're less likely to start with social capital.

During the period of the growth of unions, the economic conditions for Black Americans was generally getting better once they had some success in the political struggle for inclusion. This might be related to the change in composition of ones social network to one based on class, and the fact that improvements in lifestyle through a union are less driven by social networks and more on a class solidaristic basis.

The use of class based, democratic and egalitarian organisations seems a more likely avenue to overcoming the serious exploitation and often outright exclusion of blacks from society. There may in fact be better ways of thinking about and then dealing with these problems, but I'm still very dubious that privilege theory will be part of it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

For instance, the barely-hidden racism against black people in the US relating to drugs offences and the courts in general not only deny african americans their liberty in many cases, but obviously being in jail means you're not out earning money/accumulating savings. The worst part is that a criminal history will haunt you for the rest of your life. Especially one with serious charges. It'll be used to deny you employment, education, housing, etc. 30 years ago those records would be sitting in a dusty box in some county record office somewhere...now they're available to anyone in seconds.

[Sea]

Is it an issue of these groups having a privilege, or nonconforming groups having a disadvantage?

For it to be a matter of privilege rather than disadvantage would mean that whites are elevated above the "normal" (neither privileged nor disadvantaged) median. Is this the case? Are whites not only not discriminated against (for the most part) but privileged as well?

This is essentially the difference between the question of discrimination, which obviously exists, and the question of privilege, which is a bit trickier. Then of course there are those who don't even bother to make the distinction between a lack of privilege and a presence of discrimination.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

First, I'm not a fan of privilege theory at all, basically for the reasons the op stated: that it does not appear to have any function as an analytic theory. That on the whole certain groups have better probability distributions for outcomes is a pretty obvious fact, and is undeniable. However, as the saying goes "Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it". I don't see much concrete suggestions for overcoming problems coming out of privilege theory. Feelings of guilt really don't get us very far.
Well, if privilege theory rests of the hands of the intellectual petty-bourgeoisie, then I would generally agree with your assessment. But I think your dismissal is premature. Privilege theory, in the hands of Marxists, could be an effective method of engaging the consciousness of workers. It can challenge the very ideological root of your life; your most basic assumptions and attitudes towards people around you, the cultural practices that we used to (or still) take for granted, the power dynamics of bourgeois culture, etc. Taking privilege theory for ourselves will help us, along with psychology and other fields of study, get to the very bottom of how ruling ideas become a part of our daily lives. In my opinion this is perfectly consistent with what Marx set out to do when he wrote Das Kapital.

In doing so we may succeed in appealing to the intelligence of workers, rather than emotion, as fascism does.

[Homo Songun]

Here is another oddity about privilege theory.

- If there is a thing called "racism" which requires a mental effort on the part of the racially privileged individual to overcome in their day to day lives, and

- If there is a thing called "sexism" which requires a mental effort on the part of the sexually privileged individual to overcome in their day to day lives,

et cetera, then the obvious corollary (per the intersectionality paradigm) becomes:

- There is a thing called "classism" which requires a mental effort on the part of the class privileged individual to overcome in their day to day lives. Huh?

No thanks. I'd rather the workers themselves collectively work for the overthrow of the "class privileged" without waiting around, myself.

But if that is true, does that mean the onus is on the oppressed themselves to collectively fight for their rights in whatever field? Which is not say that we don't welcome the efforts of the 'enlightened gentry' or whatever...

[ed miliband]

I am actually quite surprised at how much support there is for privilege theory on here. I don't think that it is an ideology with anything at all to offer the working class. I think that it is not at all surprising that ideas like this come out of academia in the country with quite probably the weakest working class in the Western world. That it finds people outside of American academic life who agree with it is more surprising.

Devrim

funnily enough, i don't think noel ignatiev, one of the theorists who developed 'privilege theory', would disagree with you too much here. he saw 'white skin privilege' as a way of explaining - very particularly - the weakness of the american working class, rather than a one-size-fits-all explanation for everything from british colonialism to the gender and racial make-up of pro-revolutionary groups.

[black magick hustla]

i don't really have much patience for "priviliege theory" but some articulation about the complex relationship between racism and class is necessary. anyway, it is true that the us has the "weakest" working class (although historically, this is not always true imho), but i also think the american racial experience is not the same as the european racial experience. europe was not created through the ethnic cleansing of indigenous groups nor whole sectors of the economy depended on slavery in late 19th century.

[Rowan Duffy]

Certainly there is utility in thinking clearly about the interaction of race and class, and I'd definitely support inquiries. However, let's look at some of the implications of the framing of privilege theory.

It is called "privilege theory," not "disadvantage theory" or "oppression theory". By it's very name it focuses attention on people who are currently placed in society slightly higher and labels them as being privileged. The black man is privileged with respect to the black woman. The black woman is privileged with respect to the native American female lesbian. The hierarchy of privilege is unending, and nobody gets to be free from guilt for not being further down the ladder.

Second, what does this privilege consist of? Is it a privilege that I enjoy to be able to work? To not be shot by police? Am I really benefiting by the systematic degredation of those of other races, genders and sexual orientations? The framing of basic social rights as privileges is already a bizarrely right wing discourse.

In fact, there are many on the far right who do believe that there are systemic advantages to degredation what for instance all white males share. Personally, I don't think we live in a zero sum game and I don't think this discourse is true.

From a purely economic perspective, what exactly is the value in exploitative terms of having black men unable to find jobs? Certainly there is a value to capitalists in having a reserve of labour which can make workers more precarious, but if you are systematically able to avoid this by the colour of your skin then surely it no longer qualifies as a useful method of accelerating exploitation by the capitalist.

I think in fact, the more useful material function of reinforcing racism and systemic oppressions is not in the ability to exploit at greater rates for the most part. Rather it's a very useful way of dividing up the working class such that they align in a cross class alliance with the bourgeoisie and re-define their identities in non-confrontation with the general political economic system.

The Roma, Homosexual and Jewish people weren't consigned to die in death camps because it allowed them to be exploited more effectively, and the German people definitely did not as a whole benefit from their consignment to death camps. Rather, it was a strategy to form a bloc which would incorporate a majority section of the working class back into a system which was not working for them.

In this light what is the function of privilege theory, if in fact it isn't a privilege that one is getting? To me it actually looks like an internationisation of the notion that oppressing people lifts me up.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Certainly there is utility in thinking clearly about the interaction of race and class, and I'd definitely support inquiries. However, let's look at some of the implications of the framing of privilege theory.

It is called "privilege theory," not "disadvantage theory" or "oppression theory". By it's very name it focuses attention on people who are currently placed in society slightly higher and labels them as being privileged. The black man is privileged with respect to the black woman. The black woman is privileged with respect to the native American female lesbian. The hierarchy of privilege is unending, and nobody gets to be free from guilt for not being further down the ladder.

The existence of privilege does not entail that those in a “hierarchical” position need to or must feel guilt. You would have a valid point…that is, if you weren’t making the mistake of attacking the bourgeois interpretation of privilege theory, as opposed to mine.


Second, what does this privilege consist of? Is it a privilege that I enjoy to be able to work? To not be shot by police? Am I really benefiting by the systematic degredation of those of other races, genders and sexual orientations? The framing of basic social rights as privileges is already a bizarrely right wing discourse.

I believe you are missing the point. Yes, one could say, for example, that since black people are routinely rounded up and mistreated by the police as opposed to white people, they tend to “benefit” as a result. Again, this does not entail guilt, not in the slightest; privilege is a social relation, an ideological product of social inequality. It is usually passively acquired, as a result of being instilled with the ruling ideas of society from our early childhood, according to the social standing of each individual and their relation to society. Exposing its existence therefore becomes a very tricky and volatile task, because we are dealing the very ideological root of people’s lives. It is certainly not a substitute for the Marxist method, yet you're acting as if that all it ever does. Either way, I fail to see what is particularly “right wing” about this.


In fact, there are many on the far right who do believe that there are systemic advantages to degredation what for instance all white males share. Personally, I don't think we live in a zero sum game and I don't think this discourse is true.

So, your point is that privilege theory can be used by in a reactionary way. One could say this about most theories and ideologies, including evolutionary theory and even Marxism. Does this mean that all theories and observations used improperly should be rejected? Certainly not. It’s nice that you “personally” feel that you’re correct though…for what little that’s worth.


From a purely economic perspective, what exactly is the value in exploitative terms of having black men unable to find jobs? Certainly there is a value to capitalists in having a reserve of labour which can make workers more precarious, but if you are systematically able to avoid this by the colour of your skin then surely it no longer qualifies as a useful method of accelerating exploitation by the capitalist.

You’re framing the issue incorrectly, because privilege is not “purely economic” at all, or at least, it is not the most decisive aspect. As I said before, there is a huge cultural and psychological aspect to privilege. Only focusing on the economic misses the fact that the mind and its ideas can play a fairly autonomous role in history. Otherwise, the rise of Nazism would be impossible to understand. Divorcing the base from the superstructure is not an option here. Part of the task of Marxists is bring the objective and the subjective as close together as possible, and this means that in order to communicate with workers we must try to get into their heads by engaging their everyday concerns, and how they see those concerns.


I think in fact, the more useful material function of reinforcing racism and systemic oppressions is not in the ability to exploit at greater rates for the most part. Rather it's a very useful way of dividing up the working class such that they align in a cross class alliance with the bourgeoisie and re-define their identities in non-confrontation with the general political economic system.

Just because racism is ultimately a bourgeois technique to divide the working class does not mean it can be reduced as such. You seem to be rather allergic to the concept of analyzing the role of bourgeois culture and how it is reflected in the minds and hearts of ordinary people; a deep understanding of social relations as they currently are is required. I very much doubt that a black worker, who has likely encountered special oppression from the racist justice system as well as economic hardship would find your argument sufficient.


The Roma, Homosexual and Jewish people weren't consigned to die in death camps because it allowed them to be exploited more effectively, and the German people definitely did not as a whole benefit from their consignment to death camps. Rather, it was a strategy to form a bloc which would incorporate a majority section of the working class back into a system which was not working for them.

I have no interest in analyzing the Nazi holocaust, but I’ll at last say that find your explanation to be rather mechanical. In fact, your outlook on all of this seems to be largely utilitarian as opposed to holistic. I don’t think this is an attractive philosophical outlook for a socialist.


In this light what is the function of privilege theory, if in fact it isn't a privilege that one is getting? To me it actually looks like an internationisation of the notion that oppressing people lifts me up.

I’ll borrow an argument that a comrade once made to me: Your opposition to the reformist left’s version of privilege is noted. I oppose it as well. But your treatment of the subject matter is rather one-sided. You’re seeming to neglect that the question of identity privilege is an important issue for the working class. I think that part of your rejection is that you have no vision of these relations beyond how they exist in capitalist society. If you keep on this path, that the concept of privilege is purely bourgeois territory, you may end up in reactionary territory yourself. Simply pointing to disproportionate oppression in capitalism is not enough. The working class cannot be won by handing out pamphlets and dismissing out of hand what they “think” they know about their own lives.

[MarxSchmarx]

europe was not created through the ethnic cleansing of indigenous groups nor whole sectors of the economy depended on slavery in late 19th century.

Russia?

[Rurkel]

Russian serfdom was de-facto chattel slavery by the 18th century, but it wasn't racial.

[MarxSchmarx]

Russian serfdom was de-facto chattel slavery by the 18th century, but it wasn't racial.

Two points. First, "race" in America was about family lineage. Sally Hemmings for instance was (at least) 3/4 white. There are several other examples of people who were indistinguishable phenotypically from whites who were still "slaves" because of the laws condoning white male rape of their slaves. In Russia, too, family lineage was what counted, and records as detailed as America's were kept.

Second, to what extent did racial classifications matter? They affected a fairly small population of free blacks, sure, but the economic dimensions of slavery rather than the racial dimensions were often the determining factor in structuring political development (e.g., the failure of the American south to industrialize). In both Russia and America, capitalism could not advance until a "peculiar institution" that propped up agricultural (and in Russia's case mining) interests had been dealt with.

Ultimately in America race was a rather fluid concept, and had more to do with family background than any "objective" or "biological" classification. In this respect in practice it operated really not much differently than Russian serfdom, where family lineage was what mattered. True, the ability of the ruling class to cast the issue of slavery as one of race probably prolonged slavery in the Americas, and I think there is some merit to the view that it is the reason Spain and Brazil retained slavery for so long and Britain abandoned slavery after it lost its continental colonies, but in an economic analysis of history the crucial question is the relation to the means of production, and there "race" is just as crude and arbitrary a designation as family pedigree.

[CyM]

White privilege theory is entirely in contradiction with Marxism. Not only that, it is a thoroughly reactionary theory that has to be buried for the movement to advance.

Two men are attacked at night. One is white and one is black. Both are robbed and cut. The white man ends up losing his arm at the hospital. The attacker was racist though, so the black man's wounds were far worse, and he ended up dying.

That fucking white man and his fucking white privilege.

/whiteprivilegetheory

It is not a privilege to be less exploited or less brutalized by a system that exploits and brutalizes all layers of the working class. There is zero blame to be placed on the white worker, and white privilege theory is simply third-worldism for anarchists and academics applied to the first world. Its roots lie not in Marxism, but in white guilt.

Spare me your white guilt, stop patronizing me, join me and we'll overthrow this system together and end the racism it uses.

White people need to stop theorizing about whiteness and start talking about how to help us carry out the revolution.

[CyM]

And capitalism does gain from racism, sexism, other forms of discrimination. But the link is not linear.

Examine two racists. One is a worker, who loses his job, and learns from Fox news that the Mexican is to blame. He is backward, and ignorant. He gains nothing from his hatred of the Mexican, and it is born of his lack of understanding of his own interests.

The other his boss, who wishes to hire cheap labour. He hires an illegal immigrant, exploits him for 11 hours a day, six days a week, at 2 dollars below minimum wage. His hatred of this immigrant is born of his need to exploit him even more than the law allows. Even more, he, and his media at Fox news, will pass on this hatred to the workers he replaces with cheap labour. It is not a conscious shifting of blame for the most part, but if you've ever seen someone work a room and subconsciously sow discord to get ahead, this is what he does here.

The worker, at another job, goes on strike and the boss tries to ship in scabs. The replacements are Mexican, but they refuse to cross the picket line. The same worker who was yesterday a racist is today an internationalist.

Why? Because his psychology is forged into unity, and that process may be cut across temporarily by this or that influence, but that unity has a tendency to reassert itself at every advance of the movement. Standing together at the picketline will wash away the influence of the bourgeois media and their racist seeds have shallow roots that can also be severed by the unity in struggle.

The capitalist, on the other hand, will forever be biting his tongue even in the era of obama, because his racism is an essential survival strategy, subconsciously taken up to defend his interests by keeping his enemies from uniting. This makes the roots of his racism far deeper.

White privilege theory is wrong, but so is forgetting that racism is a necessary part of capitalism.

The key is class in any case, and the unity of our class.

[Questionable]

Is there a middleground between those who say white privilege is a total myth and those who say white workers are all fat leeches who love capitalism?

I feel like racism, sexism, and oppression in general are really the expression of objective class relations, and not merely feudal prejudices floating around in the superstructure, but I think they have their own dynamic to struggle against and can't merely be overcome by saying "Can't we all just get along?"

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The worker, at another job, goes on strike and the boss tries to ship in scabs. The replacements are Mexican, but they refuse to cross the picket line. The same worker who was yesterday a racist is today an internationalist.

Why? Because his psychology is forged into unity, and that process may be cut across temporarily by this or that influence, but that unity has a tendency to reassert itself at every advance of the movement. Standing together at the picketline will wash away the influence of the bourgeois media and their racist seeds have shallow roots that can also be severed by the unity in struggle.

I'd like to believe that, but, on the other hand, the history of the North American labour movement is often one in which the solidarity of third-world workers is met with contempt by whites. In the famous Flint sit-down strikes the UAW included among their demands keeping blacks on the lowest rungs of the workplace ladder. The intersection between race and class is messier than what you're positing. (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/raceburn.html) I'm not saying that this is inherent - just that working class unity can't emerge in a real way while serious class stratification and settler consciousness cut through it.


The capitalist, on the other hand, will forever be biting his tongue even in the era of obama, because his racism is an essential survival strategy, subconsciously [to be fair, sometimes it's not subconscious at all - the bourgeois are often pretty cognizant of their class interest - VMC] taken up to defend his interests by keeping his enemies from uniting. This makes the roots of his racism far deeper.

White privilege theory is wrong, but so is forgetting that racism is a necessary part of capitalism.

The key is class in any case, and the unity of our class.

I wouldn't draw from this that privilege theory is "wrong" - mostly because "privilege theory" isn't really a thing that exists in any unitary way. I would say that understanding of privilege that isn't rooted in relation to capital - that deals with privilege solely as it relates to individuals - is woefully inadequate for understanding white supremacy, or patriarchy, or whatever else.


It is not a privilege to be less exploited or less brutalized by a system that exploits and brutalizes all layers of the working class. There is zero blame to be placed on the white worker, and white privilege theory is simply third-worldism for anarchists and academics applied to the first world. Its roots lie not in Marxism, but in white guilt.

Arguably, if we understand capitalism as inherently brutal and exploitative, and not incidentally so, being spared exploitation and brutality is experienced as privilege, even if, obviously, this constitutes false consciousness. I think that both these understandings are crucial, because even if we can say, "You don't have it good! You're getting screwed!" it doesn't change the reality that the granting of (arguably superficial) privileges has proven of incredible utility to the capitalist class in organizing racist and misogynistic violence by workers against other workers.

I will certainly agree that white guilt is destructive, and a politics of constantly apologizing for the colour of one's skin is unproductive at best. On the other hand, recognizing the various dis/advantages, manifestations, and contexts created by capitalists' racial ordering of spaces/bodies has real utility. I can clean up and walk right in to a corporate headquarters without anyone giving me a second look. I'll never be stopped for driving while brown. I can talk to misogynists about male supremacist attitudes without being dismissed as a *****. All of these things makes for practical implications in educating, organizing, and carrying out actions. None of those things is a consequence of "white guilt".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The problem with "privilege theory" or however we chose to title it is not in the theory itself but in its application. It is true that people with certain features benefit from privilege. However people who use white privilege in their political discourse tend to oversimplify it and ignore the complexity of material conditions that lead to social privileges.

(1) There are many kinds of privilege which go beyond mere "white privilege" or "hetero privilege" or "male privilege". What about the "privilege" of people with straight spines as opposed to people who seem deformed? Or the privilege of people who don't speak with a lisp? Or privilege of people with nice clothes? All of these things confer certain privileges upon people which can, in certain contexts, override other more normal forms of privilege. Thus, Herman Cain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain) for all intensive purposes is more privileged than most White people.

(2) It is used in a moralistic sense. White people, due to their privilege, are assumed to have less subjective knowledge of the oppression in our system. It is assumed that instead, people of color and women are necessarily more knowledgeable. Of course, it ignores the fact that many of the great Marxist theorists were white people of privilege. Fanon had more subjective experience of how privilege could impact the lives of people of color, but that doesn't mean that we should only listen to Fanon and ignore the ideas of wealthy white folks like Engels.

(3) Privilege is reinforced by a complicated set of material conditions, and talking in terms of privilege without discussing those material conditions can lead to a kind of bad identity politics. This involves pushing for small reforms that benefit one identity group while ignoring the broader structural problems. For instance, legalizing gay marriage is important but if we do that and forget the deeper structural issues that led to the marginalization of that community to begin with. This is because it focuses on changing the privileges in our society without asking the question of why such privileges exist in the first place (or from offering overly simplistic causes, like "homophobia/patriarchy/racism exists because of the Church" or something like that)

These reasons are not however sufficient to abandon privilege theory, they merely call for a more mature and rigorous application of the concept of "privilege" than what is seen in some Leftist circles. The poor white working man may have had white privilege, but he had a lot of disadvantages which meant that any supposed "privilege" was more than compensated for.

Really, a more interesting question is how reactionaries use the threat of a loss of privilege to motivate people to defend a system which they in fact have no interest in preserving (i.e poor White German workers being mobilized by white supremacist ideology in the 30s, despite the fact that they were actually being exploited)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The problem with "privilege theory" or however we chose to title it is not in the theory itself but in its application. It is true that people with certain features benefit from privilege. However people who use white privilege in their political discourse tend to oversimplify it and ignore the complexity of material conditions that lead to social privileges.

See, I feel like this is where the mistakes begin. It's not that people with "certain features" benefit from privilege per se - it's that certain features are constructed in relation to power (both in terms of juridico-political formations, and in terms of class, though even extricating those two things from one another can be pretty difficult). Race is an excellent example of this - if you can tell me what the difference is between a Scot and an Irish person is, physically, I'll give you a quarter. None the less, the Irish weren't white while after Scots were. Taking on your next point will maybe make what I'm getting at more clear:


(1) There are many kinds of privilege which go beyond mere "white privilege" or "hetero privilege" or "male privilege". What about the "privilege" of people with straight spines as opposed to people who seem deformed? Or the privilege of people who don't speak with a lisp? Or privilege of people with nice clothes? All of these things confer certain privileges upon people which can, in certain contexts, override other more normal forms of privilege. Thus, Herman Cain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain) for all intensive purposes is more privileged than most White people.

This is where you really lose it. Speaking with a lisp or having a deformed spine, while by no means an advantage, doesn't put one in a particular relation to the racialized/gendered code of class relations. Having a nice suit, while certainly an advantage, doesn't change one's position in relation to juridical formations (you can't get a green card in the United States by marrying your gay partner no matter how damn nicely you dressed at your wedding). Privilege can't be measured quantitatively - no one is more or less privileged - only privileged or not in certain specific ways. It's for this reason that the Herman Cain analogy is utterly useless.



(2) It is used in a moralistic sense. White people, due to their privilege, are assumed to have less subjective knowledge of the oppression in our system. It is assumed that instead, people of color and women are necessarily more knowledgeable. Of course, it ignores the fact that many of the great Marxist theorists were white people of privilege. Fanon had more subjective experience of how privilege could impact the lives of people of color, but that doesn't mean that we should only listen to Fanon and ignore the ideas of wealthy white folks like Engels.

This critique is more on. The only thing I'd take issue with is the second sentence. Talking about "oppression" generally misses the point. White people do have less subjective knowledge (read: none), of racialized oppression. That subjective knowledge is a product of racialization, and if you ask a white person to describe what it's like to be a person of colour, their answer is going to be pretty useless. That doesn't mean you can't ask a white person about how to fight white supremacy and get a valid answer.

I'm not going to bother with the last part of the post. It's pretty OK.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry, I think this issue is important enough to warrant further discussion, esp. in light of Christopher Dorner, Bay Area Bookfair shitshow, and other "hot topics" so I'm bumping it.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Aight so I guess we can all agree that white privilege is a thing, and not necessarily desirable. The real question is probably: what do we do with white privilege? How do we handle it? How do we deal with white people without simply inverting conditions?

[CyM]

It is not privilege to be robbed less or less violently. That's all there is. The very word privilege with the connotations intended for it becomes a reactionary word that does much harm to the working class and sets one section of it against the other. It is no coincidence that the bourgeois social sciences have been churning this shit out in mass production.

I repeat, white revolutionaries need to do less theorizing about their whiteness, not more.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It is not privilege to be robbed less or less violently. That's all there is. The very word privilege with the connotations intended for it becomes a reactionary word that does much harm to the working class and sets one section of it against the other.

How does the existence of privilege, the social and ideological product of social inequality, do any of what you described? You keep saying that referring to it is reactionary in of itself, but you have yet to prove it.


It is no coincidence that the bourgeois social sciences have been churning this shit out in mass production.

I repeat, white revolutionaries need to do less theorizing about their whiteness, not more.
Oh yes, because marginalizing the issue of race will make it go away.

[CyM]

Inequality exists, double and triple exploitation exists, but the way people use the word privilege is useless. White workers are not "privileged" to be exploited, but less. Privilege implies a positive position in relation to surplus value. This is patently not the case. White workers produce surplus and are not paid the full value of their labour. Their relation to the white capitalists is a net negative, not a positive based on the superexploitation of other races of workers, as implied by the unmarxist idea of "privilege".

Barack Obama is a privileged, net beneficiary of surplus value. So is Quebec's woman Prime Minister, Pauline Marois. So is the new Lesbian premiere of Ontario. These millionaires from oppressed sectors are privileged.

A white worker cannot be privileged. A black worker is doubly oppressed. You see the difference? Privilege puts the emphasis, and blame, on white workers (actually while erasing the fact that they are workers and not really allowing it to enter the discussion, but I digress). Double oppression puts the emphasis on all of us being oppressed, some more than others, beginning with the capitalist class as our oppressor.

Privilege blurs the line between oppressor and oppressed. To apply that term to white workers destroys internationalist class consciousness and encourages people to think of themselves first as a colour or gender or whatever else, and not as a worker first.

Recognize the oppression your brothers and sisters experience. Fight against it in every manifestation and understand that no section of the working class can be free without uniting together and freeing us all.

But what we should be striving for is a movement where race, gender, etc... are not a factor at all except as part of the programme of our liberation.

I should not be at a meeting remembering that I'm Arab in a discussion about a strike because some white kid wants to remind us how privileged he is and how much he knows it. It is tokenism, I don't want to be "the Arab". It is also white guilt.

Either way, making race a dominant part of unrelated discussions is not anti-racism. It only divides.

So please, white radicals, get over your skin colour.

[Let's Get Free]

In america, class antagonisms have always included racial hatred. This is structural rather than just ideological. But the fate of the white working class has always been bound with the condition of black workers. Going as far back as the American colonial period when black labor was first imported into America, Black slaves were oppressed right along with lower-class Europeans. But when European indentured servants joined with blacks to rebel against their lot in the late 1600s, the propertied classes decided to "free" them by giving them a special status as "whites" and thus a stake in the system of oppression. These "white" people perceived themselves to be competitors with Africans, both enslaved and emancipated. Nation building in America meant steering away from class conflict and toward race conflict, or at least entrenched social hierarchy based on race.

The invention of the "white" race and racial slavery of africans went hand in glove. Although capitalists use the system of white skin privilege to divide the working class, the capitalists only favored the white workers to use them against their own interests, not because their was any "white unity." White workers struck a deal with the devil, which hampered all attempts at class solidarity for centuries.

[CyM]

The invention of the "white" race and racial slavery of africans went hand in glove. Although capitalists use the system of white skin privilege to divide the working class, the capitalists only favored the white workers to use them against their own interests, not because their was any "white unity." White workers struck a deal with the devil, which hampered all attempts at class solidarity for centuries.

I like this quite a bit, particularly the part about treating them as "favoured" sectors of the exploited only to use them against their own interests. I would shy away from the phrase "struck a deal" though because it implies conscious collusion. Fooled by the devil is more like it ;)

As I said on an earlier page, even the racism of the white worker is inherently different from the racism of the boss. One is the division of the enemy in your own interests, consciously or unconsciously. The other is the ignorant participation in your own division and in the interests of the ruling class, in contradiction with your own real interests.

[MarxSchmarx]

The invention of the "white" race and racial slavery of africans went hand in glove. Although capitalists use the system of white skin privilege to divide the working class, the capitalists only favored the white workers to use them against their own interests, not because their was any "white unity." White workers struck a deal with the devil, which hampered all attempts at class solidarity for centuries.

But, the white ruling class did not chose to "elevate" the black slaves at the expense of the white indentured servants. The fact that one of the two groups was chosen was not a decision that was taken on a whim. Moreover, in Latin America virtually a perfect copy race-based division of the working class and peasantry was established.

But perhaps the privileging of one group over another as a strategy of colonial rule is to some degree arbitrary. I guess the example most westerners are probably familiar with are the British using east Indians as their colonial bureaucrats in Africa and the Carribbean. Another might be the picking of sides in the Hutu-Tutsi system.

[Let's Get Free]

But, the white ruling class did not chose to "elevate" the black slaves at the expense of the white indentured servants. The fact that one of the two groups was chosen was not a decision that was taken on a whim. Moreover, in Latin America virtually a perfect copy race-based division of the working class and peasantry was established.

But perhaps the privileging of one group over another as a strategy of colonial rule is to some degree arbitrary. I guess the example most westerners are probably familiar with are the British using east Indians as their colonial bureaucrats in Africa and the Carribbean.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary. In the earliest stages of american conquest, the Natives were the first people to be subjugated. African slavery only developed as a result of shortages of natives and indentured servants. Indigenous people were killed en masse, worked to death, fled, or occasionally went to war, none of which rendered them available for ongoing toil. Early imported labor (generally bonded and largely poor Europeans)could not be had in sufficient amount nor degraded comprehensively enough to produce profits from early mines or plantations. Turning to africa as a source of exploitable labor meant creating a class of free persons, most of them working class whites, who would see themselves as competitors with blacks.

[CyM]

Building further on my comments on Coup's post. Privilege implies that you have an interest in maintaining that division, much as the old roman proletariat did in relation to the slaves. If the white workers are privileged, rather than tricked into thinking their being less exploited makes them privileged (like a house slave looks down on a field slave, thinking he is free), then that would mean the tasks are the revolutionary overthrow of the white workers.

People must follow their assumptions to their logical conclusion. I for one do not think white workers gain from being set up as the favoured slaves, any more than the house slave did. Recognizing that and joining his/her class brothers and sisters in united revolutionary struggle will liberate him and advance his conditions of life.

If that were not the case, the third-worldists would be correct in arguing for revolutionary war against the first-world working class.

[Let's Get Free]

No, i dont think white workers benefit. as long as there is discrimination and racial and ethnic minorities are oppressed, the entire working class is oppressed and weakened. This is because the capitalist class is able to use racial hatred to drive drown wages of individual segments of the working class by inciting racial antagonism and forcing fight for jobs and services. This division is a development that ultimately undercuts living standards for all workers. In order for an effective offensive against capitalism to be mounted, the utmost solidarity between workers of all races is a necessity.

[CyM]

No, i dont think white workers benefit. as long as there is discrimination and racial and ethnic minorities are oppressed, the entire working class is oppressed and weakened. This is because the capitalist class is able to use racial hatred to drive drown wages of individual segments of the working class by inciting racial antagonism and forcing fight for jobs and services. This division is a development that ultimately undercuts living standards for all workers. In order for an effective offensive against capitalism to be mounted, the utmost solidarity between workers of all races is a necessity.

Just to clarify, my last comment was not a critique, it was building further on what I agreed on in your post. I think you have very well described the situation and the tasks facing revolutionaries.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

See, I feel like this is where the mistakes begin. It's not that people with "certain features" benefit from privilege per se - it's that certain features are constructed in relation to power (both in terms of juridico-political formations, and in terms of class, though even extricating those two things from one another can be pretty difficult). Race is an excellent example of this - if you can tell me what the difference is between a Scot and an Irish person is, physically, I'll give you a quarter. None the less, the Irish weren't white while after Scots were.


That is true, however I was not speaking of these "Characteristics" being something objective about the person. It can be a social constructed characteristic for sure, I would agree with that.



This is where you really lose it. Speaking with a lisp or having a deformed spine, while by no means an advantage, doesn't put one in a particular relation to the racialized/gendered code of class relations. Having a nice suit, while certainly an advantage, doesn't change one's position in relation to juridical formations (you can't get a green card in the United States by marrying your gay partner no matter how damn nicely you dressed at your wedding). Privilege can't be measured quantitatively - no one is more or less privileged - only privileged or not in certain specific ways. It's for this reason that the Herman Cain analogy is utterly useless.
I don't think that race and gender alone fits with people's notions of class relations. That is why I think privilege extends beyond race and gender. A whole host of social contexts play a role, including one's ability to dress a certain way, act a certain way and so on. Thus, an Irishman with no accent, access to money and a good wardrobe would be able to participate in bourgeois society 100 years ago, while a working Irishman would just be a "Mick". You are right that dressing a certain way won't get one a Green Card, but it surely can get you a better job. That is because different kinds of privileges will have different impacts on a person's life. Perhaps the privilege of disability is a good example - FDR couldn't walk due to his polio, and he saw that people would define him away as decrepit and useless if they knew about his status. Thus, he needed to hide it from the American people to remain in power.

I do agree that privilege cannot be quantified, but I don't think quantification is the only way to judge "more" or "less" privileged. One cannot quantify health either, yet we would say that a person can be "more" or "less" healthy. It is how they bring together their varying parts and utilize them - if we view privilege as based on race and gender alone, its difficult to explain a black bourgeois which does not suffer from institutional racism the way that the black working class does.



This critique is more on. The only thing I'd take issue with is the second sentence. Talking about "oppression" generally misses the point. White people do have less subjective knowledge (read: none), of racialized oppression. That subjective knowledge is a product of racialization, and if you ask a white person to describe what it's like to be a person of colour, their answer is going to be pretty useless. That doesn't mean you can't ask a white person about how to fight white supremacy and get a valid answer.
I agree that people who suffer exploitation will have more subjective experience of it, but then people who do not suffer from it but empathize with the exploited can still contribute important ideas to the discussion. In fact, their subjective knowledge of what it's like on the other end of the oppression scale can be critical in understanding what's going on in cases of privilege. Also, while different kinds of oppression are different, people can still relate through analogous terms. So if Mary was repressed as a woman, she can relate to Richard who was repressed as a black person, even though their oppression was different. Thus people who seem privileged may have something in their life or a period of their live where they had some kind of severe social disadvantage themselves.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So if Mary was repressed as a woman, she can relate to Richard who was repressed as a black person, even though their oppression was different. Thus people who seem privileged may have something in their life or a period of their live where they had some kind of severe social disadvantage themselves.

I disagree - the reason talking about privilege and oppression (as opposed to only talking about exploitation) is useful is because it allows us to posit certain specificities. Patriarchy as experienced by women, white supremacy as experienced by people of colour (including its manifestation in white guilt, which CyM keeps pointing to), or ableism as experienced by a person with a disability are all wildly different and not mutually intelligible. Their real world manifestations, they spaces they exclude people from, and what needs to be done, concretely and immediately, to address them are all different. Certainly they intersect (fighting white supremacy, inevitably, means coming into confrontation with rape culture, means coming into confrontation with the division and control of bodies), but they aren't the same.


If the white workers are privileged, rather than tricked into thinking their being less exploited makes them privileged (like a house slave looks down on a field slave, thinking he is free), then that would mean the tasks are the revolutionary overthrow of the white workers.

People must follow their assumptions to their logical conclusion. I for one do not think white workers gain from being set up as the favoured slaves, any more than the house slave did. Recognizing that and joining his/her class brothers and sisters in united revolutionary struggle will liberate him and advance his conditions of life.

Clearly the task at hand isn't the revolutionary overthrow of white workers (what would that even entail?) and positing such is a lousy straw man. By collapsing all attempts to understand privilege in to liberal understandings, you're missing the crucial core of the question. Let's actually look at it through a Marxist and materialist lens. The favoured status of the "house slaves" is a real thing that has real implications and has to be grappled with. Condition precedes consciousness, and the difference in conditions between the tomato plantation and the air-conditioned cubicle leads to radically different consciousness. We can repeat "join your class in revolutionary struggle!" 'til we're blue in the face, but it hasn't worked and won't work for a reason. So, I agree, absolutely, that:


the racism of the white worker is inherently different from the racism of the boss

. . . but it doesn't excuse us from strategizing around the racism of the former. Because, while you may "shy away from the phrase 'struck a deal'," the reality is that racist, patriarchal labour unions in North America did, quite literally, strike deals with the capitalist class that, in some cases explicitly, worked to exclude racialized and women workers. A deal with the devil, I don't disagree, but it's a history that must be confronted. The opportunist character of much of the first world "labour movement" isn't going to disappear on the basis of so-called "unity" that doesn't work to attack opportunism in a principled manner.

In conclusion!

1. "Privilege" as understood by liberal academics, we can all surely agree, constitutes a useless derailing from seriously confronting capitalism in its totality.

2. While, obviously, some might not favour the terminology of "privilege", white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, etc. have material reality that divide the working class not only along ideological lines, but also in terms of the real conditions of different strata of the working class. "White guilt", condescending "feminist men", and so on, are result of these divisions, and not ideological "aberrations".

3. Calls for "unity" that don't seriously grapple with these differences will continue to reproduce opportunist organizations that strike "deals with the devil" and serve to further divide, rather than authentically unify, the class.