White Privledge and Marxism

[Hexen]

How do we explain White (Male) Privilege via a Marxist perspective?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I cannot recommend this book enough. (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici)

[DudeImNeo]

Hahhaha man this could be super long but how i c it is the upperclass white males runnin us (cuhs ukno, Obama not responsible for SHIT besides a face to tha word president) or tha '1percenters' could be considered the bourgeousie and pretty much everybody else workin under tha man, keepin em rich as fk off our hardwork, is the proletariat. Which is us. : ) i could be wrong though-hope Karl dint turn in his grave :T

[Teacher]

See the work of Theodore W. Allen.

[SonofRage]

The Cost of Privilege by Chip Smith
How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[G4b3n]

Hahhaha man this could be super long but how i c it is the upperclass white males runnin us (cuhs ukno, Obama not responsible for SHIT besides a face to tha word president) or tha '1percenters' could be considered the bourgeousie and pretty much everybody else workin under tha man, keepin em rich as fk off our hardwork, is the proletariat. Which is us. : ) i could be wrong though-hope Karl dint turn in his grave :T

The proletariat consists of a class that has nothing to sell but its labor.
The bourgeoisie are those who live by the labor of others, i.e exploiters. There are many more than just the so called "1%". I don't know if your a really stoned, trolling, or what but a serious post should have higher standards.

[Leftsolidarity]

The proletariat consists of a class that has nothing to sell but its labor.
The bourgeoisie are those who live by the labor of others, i.e exploiters. There are many more than just the so called "1%". I don't know if your a really stoned, trolling, or what but a serious post should have higher standards.

Since this is the learning forum, it would be best not to be condescending nor rude to those who are still learning. You need to take a better approach when posting in this forum as to how you communicate with newer folks or it will result in administrative action.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Is it condescending or rude to ask new posters to show respect by dropping the txt speak? Unless you are pecking out your posts with a pencil between your teeth you should be able to write a readable sentence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How do we explain White (Male) Privilege via a Marxist perspective?in what way; how do we explain the specific theory or how do we explain the the existence of the social phenomena?

[Jimmie Higgins]

See the work of Theodore W. Allen.



I cannot recommend this book enough. (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici)


The Cost of Privilege by Chip Smith
How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev

Can folks give a short rundown of why these works might be useful for the op?

[Hexen]

Well I've been thinking recently....

The reason white heterosexual christian males (that in the lower classes) are privileged is because they are "representatives" of the bourgeoisie who happen to be white heterosexual christian males?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well I've been thinking recently....

The reason white heterosexual christian males (that in the lower classes) are privileged is because they are "representatives" of the bourgeoisie who happen to be white heterosexual christian males?

No - nothing that abstract.
It's because, literally, there are laws in place (implicitly, and in some cases explicitly esp. w/r/t being cis-gendered and heterosexual in terms of medical access, citizenship, etc.). It's because, literally, most people in the first world benefit from the accumulated plunder of the rest of the planet (while at the same time suffering from it - robocops, super-prisons, etc.). It's because, literally, the politico-judico apparatus is built to target, by and large, other people for forced labour, imprisonment, and displacement.

Reality precedes representation! The ideologies of hetero patriarchy and white supremacy emerge from their practical basis, and not the other way around!

[Hit The North]

It's because, literally, most people in the first world benefit from the accumulated plunder of the rest of the planet (while at the same time suffering from it - robocops, super-prisons, etc.).


How do most people in the first world benefit from the accumulated plunder of the rest of the planet exactly?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think you've got to look at these things in context. Capitalist society evolved first within the patriarchal fuedal society of Western Europe. In other words, it was white males who became the owners of the means of production and thus gained economic power over the working classes. Through this economic power, the bourgeoisie put into place laws and traditions that maintained their position of privilege and naturally there were some others that benefited from these laws, ie white working class men who found themselves in privileged positions in relation to non-white, non-males even as they were being exploited by the bourgeoisie.

Historically, it has been white men who adopted the role of the bourgeoisie simply because they were the driving force behind the establishment of capitalism (thanks to the privileged position they already held within fuedal society) and therefore it has been white men who took to the stage of capitalist imperialism as well. However, you only have to look at other societies where capitalism has taken hold and see how the holdovers of pre-capitalist society remain when Saudi princes become bourgeois oil barons and Chinese businessmen now exploit millions where once Chinese warlords did (probably a bad example). Simply put, the patriarchy from pre-capitalist society has remained within capitalist society and historically white people were the first to progress (and suffer) under capitalism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How do most people in the first world benefit from the accumulated plunder of the rest of the planet exactly?

Walk to your local WALMART. Look at the products available, and at their prices. Consider the stuff you can get, even living on minimum wage. Certainly, this isn't only true of white men in the first world (though disproportionately so), but comes out of continued colonial and neo-colonial relationships that literally mean the massive transfer of goods and wealth from the third world to the first.
I'm not saying "Oh, first world whites live high-hog and their interests are forever with the imperialists!" - I am saying that, objectively, the "standard of living" (in capitalist terms) in the west is higher than anywhere else on the planet ever in human history, and it didn't get that way by hard work and determination (unless you want to be "funny" and call neo-/colonialism hard work).

[G4b3n]

Is it condescending or rude to ask new posters to show respect by dropping the txt speak? Unless you are pecking out your posts with a pencil between your teeth you should be able to write a readable sentence.

This is exactly what I was referring to.

[Hit The North]

Walk to your local WALMART. Look at the products available, and at their prices.

Yes, it is amazing that Walmart turned $3.78 Billion profit in the first quarter of this year alone (source (http://www.ibtimes.com/wal-mart-wmt-made-378-billion-profit-1q-2013-lower-expected-payroll-tax-hike-unseasonably-cool)). They're obviously not charging enough for their goods :rolleyes:. Meanwhile, while Walmart is making huge profits (not only by squeezing their international suppliers but also by squeezing their own workforce), in 2011 over 50 million Americans experienced food insecurity (source (http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx)).

Take a look at the distribution of wealth in the USA:

QPKKQnijnsM
You will observe that the majority of even Americans share only a tiny proportion of the wealth that global capitalism produces.


Certainly, this isn't only true of white men in the first world (though disproportionately so), but comes out of continued colonial and neo-colonial relationships that literally mean the massive transfer of goods and wealth from the third world to the first.

Is this true? In terms of food production, the USA exports more food than any other country in the world (source (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx)). In terms of overall exports it is third in the world behind China and Germany (source (http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-exporting-countries-map.html)).

So contrary to your assertions, it is clear that the countries that produce and export the most goods worldwide are the economic powerhouses of the first world and the flow of commodities (the elementary form of wealth under capitalism) does not flow from the third world to the first world, but the other way around.

[Leftsolidarity]

Is it condescending or rude to ask new posters to show respect by dropping the txt speak? Unless you are pecking out your posts with a pencil between your teeth you should be able to write a readable sentence.



This is exactly what I was referring to.

If you have an issue with how the type, find a better way to talk about it.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To start, you're still missing the point, which isn't that being working class in the first world is doing cocaine off the dash off your Rolls while commuting to your office to check facebook. It's that the global distribution of wealth is such that even if wealth were distributed evenly in the first world, wealth would still be distributed wildly unevenly in global terms. Obviously, this isn't because there just "happens" to be more wealth in places where there are a lot of white people.


Yes, it is amazing that Walmart turned $3.78 Billion profit in the first quarter of this year alone (source (http://www.ibtimes.com/wal-mart-wmt-made-378-billion-profit-1q-2013-lower-expected-payroll-tax-hike-unseasonably-cool)). They're obviously not charging enough for their goods :rolleyes:. Meanwhile, while Walmart is making huge profits (not only by squeezing their international suppliers but also by squeezing their own workforce), in 2011 over 50 million Americans experienced food insecurity (source (http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx)).

Yes, WALMART, one of America's largest importers, turned massive profits, primarily on Chinese imports (over 50%, according to most of the sources I found). China is one of seven countries that accounts for a third of the world's malnutrition. I'm not scoffing at 50 million Americans needing to go to the Food Bank - it represents a real contradiction in American capitalism - but it's quantitatively insignificant.


Take a look at the distribution of wealth in the USA:

QPKKQnijnsM
You will observe that the majority of even Americans share only a tiny proportion of the wealth that global capitalism produces.

Which again, misses the point. If my gang robs your house at gunpoint, do you care how we distribute among ourselves? Of course not! That doesn't mean there aren't competing interests within my gang, and that there aren't members of my gang who would share your interest against the gang's top dogs. However, I suspect it's some small comfort.


Is this true? In terms of food production, the USA exports more food than any other country in the world (source (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx)). In terms of overall exports it is third in the world behind China and Germany (source (http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-exporting-countries-map.html)).

Aye, but doesn't look at agriculture in any meaningful way beyond some big dollar numbers, without any real contextualizing information (I mean, it's on a site for investors for cripes sake). America's dumping subsidized, industrially produced corn onto the world market isn't the same thing as, for example, India exporting rice and fish while malnourishment is at the highest numbers in the world.

An aside, look at the make-up of poorly paid agricultural labourers in the US. Who's there? (http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/chapter1.cfm) Hint: Not white America.


So contrary to your assertions, it is clear that the countries that produce and export the most goods worldwide are the economic powerhouses of the first world and the flow of commodities (the elementary form of wealth under capitalism) does not flow from the third world to the first world, but the other way around.

If you look at exports as a percentage of GDP (though still by no means a perfect method), a very different picture emerges: thanks World Bank! (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS)

You're also failing to examine, meaningfully, who's exporting what where.

Like, let me know when the flow of Canadian domestic labourers to the Philippines balances out movement the other way around.

[Hit The North]

To start, you're still missing the point, which isn't that being working class in the first world is doing cocaine off the dash off your Rolls while commuting to your office to check facebook. It's that the global distribution of wealth is such that even if wealth were distributed evenly in the first world, wealth would still be distributed wildly unevenly in global terms. Obviously, this isn't because there just "happens" to be more wealth in places where there are a lot of white people.


I'm not denying that capitalism creates global inequalities, or that imperialism impedes the economic development of client states. The dispute between you and I is over who benefits from this. You appear to suggest that the white working class of the first world is a significant beneficiary. But you fail to understand how capitalism works - primarily that it develops the material level of society. It is therefore obvious that it is in those countries where it is most dominant where the wealth will be created. Now, as Marx, argued, the elementary form of wealth in a capitalist society is not land or raw materials, it is the commodity. And you can produce any league table you care for and this will demonstrate that the overwhelming number of commodities are produced in the most advanced capitalist nations. It is the proletariat of the advanced nations (including China) that is responsible for the wealth of the world.


Yes, WALMART, one of America's largest importers, turned massive profits, primarily on Chinese imports (over 50%, according to most of the sources I found).
I'd like to see your sources, but even so, China is not the third world - or at least the factories and the workforce that produce the commodities Walmart sells to America are not "third world". But China is an interesting example in terms of your argument. Do you think that China joined the top-rank of capitalist nations on the super-exploitation of its numberless peasants - the masses that make up the majority of China's malnourished? On the contrary, China has become a major economic power through the transformation of these peasants into proletarians and the extraction of their labour power. As the Chinese working class begins to assert itself and better its condition it will begin to seize more of the social surplus for itself - as 'first world' workers have done.


China is one of seven countries that accounts for a third of the world's malnutrition. I'm not scoffing at 50 million Americans needing to go to the Food Bank - it represents a real contradiction in American capitalism - but it's quantitatively insignificant.
Quantitatively insignificant? Not in America where you live and act! I tell you, as long as you continue to ring your hands over the plight of the third world and heap guilt on American workers, then you will be no use to them. I mean what is your position here? That American workers have it too good already and so should refrain from fighting for better wages and conditions?!


Which again, misses the point. If my gang robs your house at gunpoint, do you care how we distribute among ourselves? Of course not! That doesn't mean there aren't competing interests within my gang, and that there aren't members of my gang who would share your interest against the gang's top dogs. However, I suspect it's some small comfort.
No because the point is that you wade into this discussion arguing that first world workers benefit from third world exploitation (as if first world workers aren't exploited themselves!) and I'm showing you that hardly benefit at all in terms of the accumulation of persoanl wealth, from the profits made by the global corporations that plunder the world. So, to reiterate, my argument with you is about who benefits from the treasure-trove of imperialism.


Aye, but doesn't look at agriculture in any meaningful way beyond some big dollar numbers, without any real contextualizing information (I mean, it's on a site for investors for cripes sake). America's dumping subsidized, industrially produced corn onto the world market isn't the same thing as, for example, India exporting rice and fish while malnourishment is at the highest numbers in the world.It look at agriculture in the context of who produces what and exports what. America exports more food than India - how is that not meaningful in terms of our argument. Or do you think that the USA is exporting food that is produced from outside its borders? A key point is to understand the link between the general level of subsistence and the productive power of a particular economy. America is more productive than India when it comes to producing food. And it doesn't matter if its "dumping subsidized, industrially produced corn onto the world market" as you put it, because its still food that feeds people. Finally, one key reason why India has huge levels of malnutrition isn't because it is forced to export its food abroad it is because it is a disgustingly unequal society with massive sectors of underdevelopment. How do first world workers benefit from this?


An aside, look at the make-up of poorly paid agricultural labourers in the US. Who's there? (http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/chapter1.cfm) Hint: Not white America.Yeah, so American agriculture is organised along ethnic lines. The preponderance of migrant labour only indicates how low-paid agricultural labouring is in the US. How do workers of the first world (American workers!) benefit from this? Your point is beside the point. Or are you now arguing that it is only white workers in the first world who benefit from the plunder of the third world?


If you look at exports as a percentage of GDP (though still by no means a perfect method), a very different picture emerges: thanks World Bank! (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS)
You're going to have to spell out what that picture is, as I've looked at your link and can't follow the point you're trying to make.


You're also failing to examine, meaningfully, who's exporting what where.
That's true. Most economic interaction takes place between centres of developed capitalism. But this doesn't explain how first world workers benefit from the plunder of the third world.


Like, let me know when the flow of Canadian domestic labourers to the Philippines balances out movement the other way around.This is totally irrelevant, unless you think that American workers all have Filipino maids :lol:.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You appear to suggest that the white working class of the first world is a significant beneficiary. But you fail to understand how capitalism works - primarily that it develops the material level of society.


On what basis, HtN? How does capitalism develop? From whence come the raw materials, the labour, the land on which that development is premised? The working class, yes, but also, and crucially if we want to understand capitalism as something real and historical, it comes from neo-/colonial plunder.


I'd like to see your sources, but even so, China is not the third world - or at least the factories and the workforce that produce the commodities Walmart sells to America are not "third world". But China is an interesting example in terms of your argument. Do you think that China joined the top-rank of capitalist nations on the super-exploitation of its numberless peasants - the masses that make up the majority of China's malnourished? On the contrary, China has become a major economic power through the transformation of these peasants into proletarians and the extraction of their labour power. As the Chinese working class begins to assert itself and better its condition it will begin to seize more of the social surplus for itself - as 'first world' workers have done.

Yes, China has become a top capitalist power by the increasing displacement of peasants from their landbase, and the super-exploited labour of primarily women in sweatshops that make McJobs look like Executive Class. And as the Chinese working class begins to assert itself and better its condition . . . Chinese capitalists will have to find a way to dispossess and plunder in order to pay for it.


Quantitatively insignificant? Not in America where you live and act! I tell you, as long as you continue to ring your hands over the plight of the third world and heap guilt on American workers, then you will be no use to them. I mean what is your position here? That American workers have it too good already and so should refrain from fighting for better wages and conditions?!

No, not in America, globally. It's a point I keep emphasizing, which you seem either incapable or unwilling to internalize. None of this is an argument against struggle in the first world - it's a point for the necessity of revolutionary transformation against economism (which, historically, pits sections of the working class against one another). Coincidentally, I have never had to explain this to a worker because it's common knowledge that $10 an hour is a fuck of a lot more than $2 a day. It's only throwback dogmatic Marxists who can't seem to accept that there could be stratification within the global working class.
Further, I'm not an American and don't live in America. You are evidently nominally literate, and I therefore resent that you keep suggesting as much.


Yeah, so American agriculture is organised along ethnic lines. The preponderance of migrant labour only indicates how low-paid agricultural labouring is in the US. How do workers of the first world (American workers!) benefit from this? Your point is beside the point.

Food prices. Food is not cheap in the first world because capitalists are generous - it's because the labour is cheap. Labour isn't cheap because brown people just love subsidizing American supermarkets - it's because of the forced displacement and violence of neo-colonialism that they're there in the first place.

Frigging opportunist imperial chauvinist drivel. I can't even be bothered to reply to the rest of this garbage.

[blake 3:17]

@VMC -- I'm trying to make wisecracks but can't bring myself to it. Abstract Marxists with their fancy plans and indifference to human suffering just end up on the side of the oppressor, unconsciously or not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Food is cheap in the first world? That's news to me!

[Rurkel]

Third world workers have to struggle against both their own and the "Western" bourgeoisie. I'd say that for that reason, they'll have an even harder time reaching decent-ish conditions then the first worlders. It's probably impossible for the Third World workers as a whole to reach such conditions, even though in some countries they might. HTN's assertion that Third world workers will reach "Western" standards just like their co-classists in the First one definitely doesn't take all factors into the account. Even in case of relatively autonomous Third World bourgeoisie, their need to compete with the successful "Western" one can make them less willing to make concessions towards those whom they exploit.

That shouldn't mean, however, that they're the only revolutionary subject on the planet, or that the First world workers significantly benefit from their exploitation.

[thewire]

No - nothing that abstract.
It's because, literally, there are laws in place (implicitly, and in some cases explicitly esp. w/r/t being cis-gendered and heterosexual in terms of medical access, citizenship, etc.). It's because, literally, most people in the first world benefit from the accumulated plunder of the rest of the planet (while at the same time suffering from it - robocops, super-prisons, etc.). It's because, literally, the politico-judico apparatus is built to target, by and large, other people for forced labour, imprisonment, and displacement.

Reality precedes representation! The ideologies of hetero patriarchy and white supremacy emerge from their practical basis, and not the other way around!

While I agree with your point about the political-judiciary apparatus I would have to also state that the problem is also larger than just different ideological apparatuses that the state itself has established and that the concentration of the majority of the world's wealth to white/anglo-saxon/european countries is no coincidence either, thus referring to the OP's point about how white people in general are representative of that racial component of the wealth-labor-racial relations of capitalism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Coincidentally, I have never had to explain this to a worker because it's common knowledge that $10 an hour is a fuck of a lot more than $2 a day.

It's not so easy to draw a direct line between "higher wages" and "neo-colonial plunder", actually. See here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1727938&postcount=7), for example. Export capital is simply not that big of a percentage of total capital, and the majority of it goes from nations in the "global north" to other nations in the GN. (That entire thread has a pretty interesting debate over the entire "labor aristocracy" thesis.

[Comrade #138672]

That's true. Most economic interaction takes place between centres of developed capitalism. But this doesn't explain how first world workers benefit from the plunder of the third world.I don't think they really "benefit" (especially not in the long term), but the plunder of the Third World does seem to make the situation a little easier (on average) to tolerate for (some) workers in the First World. Like VMC said, goods are a little cheaper on average and it also gives the ruling class some extra space for concessions, if they deem it necessary. This all contributes to the suppression of revolutionary sentiments, I believe. This is how I understand the labour aristocracy (which is still somewhat controversial among Marxists, it seems).

[Hexen]

Is there anyway to destroy this cage? I.E. ending oppression? Well anyway...Does this describe Capitalism BTW? The image is from this article: http://feministactivism.com/tag/white-privilege/
http://feministactivism.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/birdcage.jpg?w=760

[Jimmie Higgins]

On what basis, HtN? How does capitalism develop? From whence come the raw materials, the labour, the land on which that development is premised? The working class, yes, but also, and crucially if we want to understand capitalism as something real and historical, it comes from neo-/colonial plunder.Well any system can plunder, what makes capitalism unique is the monopoly (privitization) of the means of production. The plunder of the New World and other areas by European powers certaintly fueled capitalism, but the plunerers initially were not capitalist and countries like Spain and Portugal never developed capitalism from that plunder because their direct exploitation allowed them to get wealth through direct theft rather than capitalist exploitation and re-investing into production.

But there is definately a link there, I just think that sometimes it's overstated and leads to a view of capitalism as just theft. Capitalists will steal from anyone - other capitalists, states, whatever but the system as a system runs on labor exploitation of a particular sort.


Coincidentally, I have never had to explain this to a worker because it's common knowledge that $10 an hour is a fuck of a lot more than $2 a day. It's only throwback dogmatic Marxists who can't seem to accept that there could be stratification within the global working class. I don't know any serious radical who doesn't think there is stratification... within workplaces, locations, and internationally. And I don't know any worker who thinks that $2 is more than $10 or that people in other parts of the world don't have lower living standards. But as my filipino immigrant coworker told me about how his relatives back home all think he's loaded and want him to send remitances, he has to explain... yes, it's a lot of money and none of it is left at the end of the month.

Looking at wages this way is problematic in two ways IMO: first I think it implies that workers are not part of the equation and are passive subjects of capitalism, rather than part of a dynamic process of class struggle. Second it's comparing crumbs while ignoring the size of the pie and who controlls... um, the pie (ok that metephore didn't work). Looked at this way, we see that US productivity is far greater than in the past when there was less inequality, and compared to European countries.

So there is stratification, but I think there's also a global division of labor going on. Rather than just plunder, capital has globalized in the sense of being able to invest wherever they can get the greatest return. So regions compete in a race to the bottom to create special economic zones and attract investment etc. And so rather than see greater working class wealth as capitalism has expanded internationally, we see working class stagnation, the creation of new 2nd and 3rd tier labor forces within the so-called first world countries and so on.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Is there anyway to destroy this cage? I.E. ending oppression? Well anyway...Does this describe Capitalism BTW? The image is from this article: http://feministactivism.com/tag/white-privilege/
http://feministactivism.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/birdcage.jpg?w=760

That is incredibly America-centric.

I doubt you'll find many influential christians in Saudi Arabia or Vietnam, and 'people of colour' is a misnomer in other parts of the world.
Also, I don't see why so many leftists are so god-damned euphemistic when describing their politics. I mean, come on - owning classes? The correct term is capitalist!


It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That is incredibly America-centric.

I doubt you'll find many influential christians in Saudi Arabia or Vietnam, and 'people of colour' is a misnomer in other parts of the world.
Also, I don't see why so many leftists are so god-damned euphemistic when describing their politics. I mean, come on - owning classes? The correct term is capitalist!

Well more than that - if I'm getting the graphic at all - it shows oppressions and exploitation all as being sort of parallel antagonisms within society. This view is compatable with the tradditional liberal view of states which are like various interest groups all competing with the government as a (sometimes unjust or corrupt) arbiter of these antagnoisms. This isn't inherently an argument against it, there are things in liberal ideologies that can be correct or partially correct from a radical view, but I think it problematic in that it implies that maybe the state can be made to work for the oppressed and that ignores where oppressions intersect and impact eachother and the fundamental reasons why people are divided in the first place (i.e. capitalism is inherently unequal in terms of power relations and so on and so oppression of various groups generally is inevitable).

A bunch of tangled threads weighed down and all hooked to a big dollar sign might be a better visual representation.