Privilege Theory

[reb]

What is it and what is the point of it? Someone linked to this on face book (http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/notes-on-privilege-theorys-critique-of-marxism-3/). I don't know if this what usually passes as privilege theory, but the author is apparently trying to say that the theory is opposed to what they consider to be Marxism. I'm notcing quite a few anarchists taking this up as if it was some sort of opposition to marxism.

[CyM]

It is in opposition to Marxism.

Privilege theory is based on the idea that certain sections of the working class are "privileged". So, 1st world, white, male, straight.

Privilege however, implies you have gained. Which is not the case at all. White workers are still exploited, and still oppressed. Just not to the same extent.

A marxist approach to the question is double oppression. Instead of the white worker being privileged, we point out that being a worker is no privilege. The white worker is oppressed, the arab worker doubly oppressed. Once as a worker, once as an arab.

This gets rid of the counterproductive "white guilt" game, which is useless, and fosters unity in the working class while recognizing the need to fight other forms of oppression.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Privilege theory is part of modern radical liberalism, reducing questions of structural oppression down to individual behavior by members of "privileged" groups. It focuses on "consciousness-raising" instead of militant action by oppressed groups in conjunction with workers. It is, quite frankly, a dead end that much of the US left and quasi-left seems to be stuck in.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'll try to respond to this in some more depth later, when I have a chance to properly read the original article. I am going to quickly dispute this, though:


It is in opposition to Marxism.

Privilege theory is based on the idea that certain sections of the working class are "privileged". So, 1st world, white, male, straight.

Privilege however, implies you have gained. Which is not the case at all. White workers are still exploited, and still oppressed. Just not to the same extent.

A marxist approach to the question is double oppression. Instead of the white worker being privileged, we point out that being a worker is no privilege. The white worker is oppressed, the arab worker doubly oppressed. Once as a worker, once as an arab.

This gets rid of the counterproductive "white guilt" game, which is useless, and fosters unity in the working class while recognizing the need to fight other forms of oppression.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

And because I only have a minute, I'm going to let old V.I. do the talking, since I'm pretty sure CyM takes his theorizing seriously:


We now have to examine yet another significant aspect of imperialism to which most of the discussions on the subject usually attach insufficient importance . . . I refer to parasitism, which is characteristic of imperialism.

[. . .]

Imperialism has the tendency to create privileged sections also among the workers, and to detach them from the broad masses of the proletariat.

[. . .]

It must be observed that in Great Britain the tendency of imperialism to split the workers, to strengthen opportunism among them and to cause temporary decay in the working-class movement, revealed itself much earlier than the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries; for two important distinguishing features of imperialism were already observed in Great Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century—vast colonial possessions and a monopolist position in the world market. Marx and Engels traced this connection between opportunism in the working-class movement and the imperialist features of British capitalism systematically, during the course of several decades. For example, on October 7, 1858, Engels wrote to Marx: “The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.”[15] Almost a quarter of a century later, in a letter dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks of the “worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the middle class”. In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.” [13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm#fwV22P284F01) (Engels expressed similar ideas in the press in his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, which appeared in 1892.)
This clearly shows the causes and effects. The causes are: (1) exploitation of the whole world by this country; (2) its monopolist position in the world market; (3) its colonial monopoly. The effects are: (1) a section of the British proletariat becomes bourgeois; (2) a section of the proletariat allows itself to be led by men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie. The imperialism of the beginning of the twentieth century completed the division of the world among a handful of states, each of which today exploits (in the sense of drawing superprofits from) a part of the “whole world” only a little smaller than that which England exploited in 1858; each of them occupies a monopolist position in the world market thanks to trusts, cartels, finance capital and creditor and debtor relations; each of them enjoys to some degree a colonial monopoly (we have seen that out of the total of 75,000,000 sq. km., which comprise the whole colonial world, 65,000,000 sq. km., or 86 per cent, belong to six powers; 61,000,000 sq. km., or 81 per cent, belong to three powers).
The distinctive feature of the present situation is the prevalence of such economic and political conditions that are bound to increase the irreconcilability between opportunism and the general and vital interests of the working-class movement: imperialism has grown from an embryo into the predominant system; capitalist monopolies occupy first place in economics and politics; the division of the world has been completed; on the other hand, instead of the undivided monopoly of Great Britain, we see a few imperialist powers contending for the right to share in this monopoly, and this struggle is characteristic of the whole period of the early twentieth century. Opportunism cannot now be completely triumphant in the working-class movement of one country for decades as it was in Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century; but in a number of countries it has grown ripe, overripe, and rotten, and has become completely merged with bourgeois policy in the form of “social-chauvinism”.

[The Feral Underclass]

Privilege theory is based on the idea that certain sections of the working class are "privileged". So, 1st world, white, male, straight.

No, it's not. It's based on the idea that anyone who inhabits a reality in which aspects of their identity are structurally reinforced by existing power and ideology experience reality in ways that privileges them at the expense of those people whose identities are attacked by existing power and ideology.

A woman experiences reality in a way that a man does not, which often inhibits her ability to live freely. A man, by virtue of being born a man, has access to a reality that a woman cannot have access to by virtue of her being a woman. That makes the man privileged in society in a way that women cannot have access to. For example, men are considered powerful, strong, masters, where as women are considered weak, ineffective, infantile. That distinction privileges men i.e. provides access to a reality that benefits men at the expense of women. For a real basic, practical example, that distinction means that men can have exciting, rewarding and physically enduring jobs that women are not permitted to have, either by law or by cultural assumptions.


Privilege however, implies you have gained. Which is not the case at all. White workers are still exploited, and still oppressed.

Privilege theory doesn't bring into question whether or not workers of any race are oppressed or exploited.


Just not to the same extent

If it is not to the same extent then they inhabit a reality in which aspects of their identity affords them certain privileges that other people are not afforded. Surely that is the nature of what "not to the same extent" means in practice.


This gets rid of the counterproductive "white guilt" game, which is useless, and fosters unity in the working class while recognizing the need to fight other forms of oppression.

But the notion that white people have to feel guilty by acknowledging that their identity privileges them in ways that black people are excluded from is a bizarre insecurity. No one is asking white people to feel bad about being white...

[The Feral Underclass]

What is it and what is the point of it?

For me, privilege theory is how I described it above. The point of it, as far as I'm concerned, is to help fight against and correct the cultural, ideological and social legacy that centuries of structural oppress has created.

Ultimately we cannot do away with structural oppression that exists against various identities, until we have re-organise our economy in a way that prioritises human beings, but even then the legacy of oppression will exist. It is important that we struggle against that now and then; not just against the overt expressions of that oppression, but the more subtle and covert aspects of it as well.

[CyM]

I'll try to respond to this in some more depth later, when I have a chance to properly read the original article. I am going to quickly dispute this, though:
And because I only have a minute, I'm going to let old V.I. do the talking, since I'm pretty sure CyM takes his theorizing seriously:
TGDU, you know better than that. The labour aristocracy is a whole different beast, I don't think any marxist would question the privilege of the leading layers of the working class.

No, it's not. It's based on the idea that anyone who inhabits a reality in which aspects of their identity are structurally reinforced by existing power and ideology experience reality in ways that privileges them at the expense of those people whose identities are attacked by existing power and ideology.
A woman experiences reality in a way that a man does not, which often inhibits her ability to live freely. A man, by virtue of being born a man, has access to a reality that a woman cannot have access to by virtue of her being a woman. That makes the man privileged in society in a way that women cannot have access to. For example, men are considered powerful, strong, masters, where as women are considered weak, ineffective, infantile. That distinction privileges men i.e. provides access to a reality that benefits men at the expense of women. For a real basic, practical example, that distinction means that men can have exciting, rewarding and physically enduring jobs that women are not permitted to have, either by law or by cultural assumptions.
Privilege theory doesn't bring into question whether or not workers of any race are oppressed or exploited.
If it is not to the same extent then they inhabit a reality in which aspects of their identity affords them certain privileges that other people are not afforded. Surely that is the nature of what "not to the same extent" means in practice.
Nope. If I get stabbed in the kidney for being a striking worker, and you get stabbed in the kidney for being a striking worker and then in the chest when they find out you're not straight, I am not privileged for only having been stabbed in the kidney. I'm still fucked. But you're double fucked.

But the notion that white people have to feel guilty by acknowledging that their identity privileges them in ways that black people are excluded from is a bizarre insecurity. No one is asking white people to feel bad about being white...
No one is asking that overtly, but that is what it boils itself down to at times. Me, listening to a bunch of white people arguing about which of them is not aware of how privileged they are, while I can't discuss shit, because the white people in the room are too busy discussing theories on whiteness.
I don't want to discuss whiteness.
And like it or not, the very word privilege implies something to be ashamed and feel guilty about. If you don't intend that, use another term. Like double oppression.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Surely, though, CyM, the relative privilege of different layers of the proletariat is not unconnected to the various forms of special oppression - i.e. in the US black women form an especially precarious layer. I don't think the notion that different layers of the proletariat can be privileged relative to other layers is problematic - and I'm certainly not concerned with the poor men or poor white people! What I find problematic is that:

(1) privilege theory is often used to silence critics of bourgeois women, queer people etc. - radfems, for example, are able to use privilege theory to avoid facing any real consequences for the toxic transphobic shit they spew;

(2) the influence of privilege theory has resulted in discussions of structural, material conditions being replaced by talk of cultural expectations and cliches;

(3) "consciousness-raising", workshops and similar phenomena have mostly replaced good, old-fashioned, proletarian militancy; if privilege theory was popular at the time of Stonewall riots, the riots would not have happened, given how focused privilege theory is on the vulnerability of oppressed groups.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nope. If I get stabbed in the kidney for being a striking worker, and you get stabbed in the kidney for being a striking worker and then in the chest when they find out you're not straight, I am not privileged for only having been stabbed in the kidney. I'm still fucked. But you're double fucked.

So you deny that men are at a bigger advantage in a patriarchal society than women?


No one is asking that overtly, but that is what it boils itself down to at times. Me, listening to a bunch of white people arguing about which of them is not aware of how privileged they are, while I can't discuss shit, because the white people in the room are too busy discussing theories on whiteness.
I don't want to discuss whiteness.

That would be, essentially, an example of white privilege and you should challenge it as such.


And like it or not, the very word privilege implies something to be ashamed and feel guilty about. If you don't intend that, use another term. Like double oppression.

Actually, most people in society would consider the word privilege to have positive connotations.

[CyM]

So you deny that men are at a bigger advantage in a patriarchal society than women?
I deny that it is a "privilege" to be less oppressed than another worker.



That would be, essentially, an example of white privilege and you should challenge it as such.
Right, so we can spend another hour discussing white guilt. I usually just try to change the subject as soon as I get a chance.


Actually, most people in society would consider the word privilege to have positive connotations.
You know what I mean. For a revolutionary to have privileges is something to be ashamed and feel guilty about. That is the automatic connotation of using that term, and we shouldn't be surprised that that's where it ends up.

[carmens0592]

I want to ask some clarifying questions that stem from my view of "privilege theory," which is different than the one Bill describes in his Oct. 30 commentary "Is there a white skin privilege?" I think on this issue diverges from Bill's, because I feel his very object of analysis, "privilege theory," is similar to this other thing we in the International Socialist Organization are rethinking our strategy around, which is "patriarchy theory."

[The Feral Underclass]

I deny that it is a "privilege" to be less oppressed than another worker.

So your argument is purely semantic; you just don't like the word privilege? Well, privilege means "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most."

If you want to reject that definition or reject that it applies to white people or men for example, then do so, otherwise I don't really see what your argument is.


Right, so we can spend another hour discussing white guilt. I usually just try to change the subject as soon as I get a chance.

You are framing these discussions as one about guilt. If you enter into a discussion framed as one in which people should or should not feel guilty then the discussion becomes about guilt.

Guilt only becomes an issue if you make it an issue. No one is trying to make anyone feel bad, and if people feel bad because they are being told that society puts them at an advantage over other people, then that should be questioned and reflected upon. Why is a discussion about a white person being advantaged over a black person turned into one about guilt?


You know what I mean. For a revolutionary to have privileges is something to be ashamed and feel guilty about. That is the automatic connotation of using that term, and we shouldn't be surprised that that's where it ends up.

I don't think it's productive to construct a position of opposition based on an insecurity like that. If people are really not capable or mature enough to understand how the word privilege is being used in this context, then I don't really understand what they have to offer the discussion.

No one is saying you should be ashamed. No one is saying you should feel guilty. If you feel ashamed and feel guilty that is something you have arrived at entirely by yourself. If the automatic connotation of the word 'privilege' is one of shame and guilt, then perhaps it would be advisable to understand what the word 'privilege' means outside of your personal interpretation.

[Five Year Plan]

I think there are serious problems with the way both CyM and The Anarchist Tension are formulating their positions on this question.

CyM talks about "special oppression" as though it were somehow added to the already existing oppression that all workers experience, as if racial or gender oppression doesn't create some zero-sum calculations between men and women, and different ethnic groups. When a black man doesn't get a job because he's black, and the white man gets it instead, it makes little sense to pretend that there isn't a direct and antagonistic racialized relationship between the two that cannot be chalked up to the additive model, which presents the white and black man as spokes situated only against the hub of capitalism and not against one another at all. It does make sense to talk about the white man getting the job as a form of privilege he experiences under capitalism, and which acts as a material basis for perpetuating racism and structural prejudices. Other examples involved other "specially oppressed" groups easily come to mind.

Where The Anarchist Tension ventures into uneasy territory is that he is casting his lot with an existing and well-established school of social thought which insists on the total and irreducible autonomy of all structures of oppression from one another by refusing to anchor them in a deeper structure of power. According to privilege theory, women are oppressed by men, and ethnic minorities are oppressed by ethnic majorities, and poor people are oppressed by rich people. None of these struggles has any analytic priority, and each should be treated on its own terms. The most influential statement of this model of power was written by Laclau and Mouffe in "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy."

I find it highly problematic. Men's power over women in society in not a monolithic thing, and neither is white people's power over people of color. They are conditioned by and manifest themselves differently, or sometimes not at all, in different contexts and circumstances because these oppressive social powers are a highly mediated and refracted expression of class power. "Maleness" is not the source of men's power over women, and never has been. It is maleness within certain contexts, namely contexts where the logic of class exploitation situates men and women differently in relationship to production, and therefore in relationship to one another. Whatever problems of empirical fact Engels' work on the emergence of the state has, he is absolutely correct in his attributing gender oppression to the rise of class society.

So when we talk about white people or men having privileges under capitalism, which they have some interest in defending, this is partially true. They have interests in defending these privileges if we presuppose the existing class system, and abstract it out of our analysis, as if it were irrelevant to our understanding of oppression. White people have an interest in defending their white privilege under capitalism, because under capitalism they benefit, by and large, as white people. They do not, however, benefit as people, specifically as working-class people. In fact, as the great historian W.E.B. DuBois pointed out long ago in his book on Black Reconstruction, racism hurt the entire working class, not just black workers.

The Anarchist Tension understands this, I think (I hope), which is why he says, "Ultimately we cannot do away with structural oppression that exists against various identities, until we have re-organise our economy in a way that prioritises human beings." But this is precisely what privilege theory does not say, and in fact disallows a person from saying, because that statement transgresses the privilege-theory model of social power and its agnosticism about its origins.

[PhoenixAsh]

Being part of the status quo is not a privilege but being treated better than the status quo is.

Privilege in discourse creates oppositional thinking and is extremely limiting. The world is not divided in simplistic two way hierarchical structures and theory certainly does not equal individual practice/experience. I say this...because privilege theory compares situations between two distinct groups and fails to really acknowledge the complex social hierarchies of oppression within these groups and between these groups.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Someone (devrim maybe) kind of brought this up in another thread, but why is it that privilege theory doesn't seem to resonate with anyone outside of 'anglosphere' countries? Surely the conditions that lead to different realities for different groups in the US or UK are also present in Brazil, Iran, China, etc. So why the disconnect?

[The Feral Underclass]

Where The Anarchist Tension ventures into uneasy territory is that he is casting his lot with an existing and well-established school of social thought which insists on the total and irreducible autonomy of all structures of oppression from one another by refusing to anchor them in a deeper structure of power. According to privilege theory, women are oppressed by men, and ethnic minorities are oppressed by ethnic majorities, and poor people are oppressed by rich people. None of these struggles has any analytic priority, and each should be treated on its own terms. The most influential statement of this model of power was written by Laclau and Mouffe in "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy."

I don't think that's what I'm doing. What I am doing is simply identifying that certain identities are advantaged by virtue of that identity in ways that others are not, and which in many respects cause negative outcomes and complications that manifest in oppressive ways. That's not the same as saying that these oppressions are not anchored in a deeper structure of power, it is simply recognising that they exist.


I find it highly problematic. Men's power over women in society in not a monolithic thing, and neither is white people's power over people of color. They are conditioned by and manifest themselves differently, or sometimes not at all, in different contexts and circumstances because these oppressive social powers are a highly mediated and refracted expression of class power.

I don't understand how we are in disagreement...


"Maleness" is not the source of men's power over women, and never has been. It is maleness within certain contexts, namely contexts where the logic of class exploitation situates men and women differently in relationship to production, and therefore in relationship to one another.

But we also have to recognise that the ideological and cultural justifications for these relationships create covert dynamics of oppression that express themselves in ways that are not directly understood, even by so-called revolutionaries. That, for me, is where privilege theory has the most to say.

When we have reorganised that relationship, it isn't suddenly going to mean that the ideological, social and cultural legacy of those distinctions will disappear. It is this material reorganisation that will expedite liberation for women, but it will not dissolve the residual cultural, ideological and social attitudes and oppressions that inhabit reality for women, and which are perpetuated by men who are oblivious to the existence of these things in the first place.

Even after re-organisation of the economy, there will require a process where men recognise that there is, within their attitude and behaviour, things that perpetuate and reinforce patriarchy. One example, and something I have witnessed, and probably if I'm honest been part of, is this seemingly 'natural' and comfortable way that men, will, in social and collective situations with other militants, unconsciously settle into a dynamic which encourages female militants to take nurturing roles. This behaviour actually lead to the creation of a badge within the movement that read: "I AM NOT YOUR MOTHER."

Now that dynamic doesn't exist because men are inherently bad people, it's because that is the seemingly 'natural' role that has been conditioned into them and requires a) awareness of its existence and b) a conscious effort to challenge their own and other men's behaviour. How do we tackle that? That behaviour and behaviour like it isn't going to disappear just because we have re-organised our economy. It is an ingrained, conditioned, unconscious response to being a man.


Whatever problems of empirical fact Engels' work on the emergence of the state has, he is absolutely correct in his attributing gender oppression to the rise of class society.

Your view is that women were not oppressed before class society?

[Five Year Plan]

I don't think that's what I'm doing. What I am doing is simply identifying that certain identities are advantaged by virtue of that identity in ways that others are not, and which in many respects cause negative outcomes and complications that manifest in oppressive ways. That's not the same as saying that these oppressions are not anchored in a deeper structure of power, it is simply recognising that they exist.

That's basically a truism, though, and doesn't go nearly far enough in examining the sources of these power disparities. I don't think anybody here would dispute that white people, on average, are wealthier than people of color, and that men, on average, hold positions of greater political power than do women. But do white people hold this power by virtue of their identities alone? No, only their identities as they are performed and manifested in different contexts. What this means is you cannot stop at just mentioning identities. The identities themselves, how they are constructed and how they operate, need to be explained and are not natural or obvious at all. So to just stop after correlating identities and power can lead to a highly misleading picture of the nature of racial and gender power, even if you as a person know implicitly (and I acknowledged that you did) that those identities and oppressions are anchored in a deeper structure of power. That was my point.


But we also have to recognise that the ideological and cultural justifications for these relationships create covert dynamics of oppression that express themselves in ways that are not directly understood, even by so-called revolutionaries. That, for me, is where privilege theory has the most to say.I agree absolutely with what you say about revolutionary politics. I just think you can talk about covert relationships and dynamics of power and coercion, operating through certain aspects of a person's social identity, without seeking refuge in the confused dead-ends of privilege theory.


When we have reorganised that relationship, it isn't suddenly going to mean that the ideological, social and cultural legacy of those distinctions will disappear. It is this material reorganisation that will expedite liberation for women, but it will not dissolve the residual cultural, ideological and social attitudes and oppressions that inhabit reality for women, and which are perpetuated by men who are oblivious to the existence of these things in the first place.

Even after re-organisation of the economy, there will require a process where men recognise that there is, within their attitude and behaviour, things that perpetuate and reinforce patriarchy. One example, and something I have witnessed, and probably if I'm honest been part of, is this seemingly 'natural' and comfortable way that men, will, in social and collective situations with other militants, unconsciously settle into a dynamic which encourages female militants to take nurturing roles. This behaviour actually lead to the creation of a badge within the movement that read: "I AM NOT YOUR MOTHER."

Now that dynamic doesn't exist because men are inherently bad people, it's because that is the seemingly 'natural' role that has been conditioned into them and requires a) awareness of its existence and b) a conscious effort to challenge their own and other men's behaviour. How do we tackle that?Of course every last trace of sexism and racism won't vanish the day after the revolution has been completed and socialism has been established internationally. People are not robots and won't wake up the next morning thinking, "Gee, I guess that class power no longer exists, so I had better stop avoiding black people as I walk down the street." These sites of social power will need to be struggled against consciously. But what is distinct about the Marxist position is that, without capitalism and class society, nobody any longer has a material incentive to reproduce forms of cultural oppression, even if society is still burdened with the residue of those oppressions. So I guess this is another qualifier I am adding to what you've said, rather than any kind of outright disagreement. You seem to be arguing against a very old fashioned caricature of Marxist revolutionary politics that claims that Marxists are only interested in class, and think that all other problems will fall into line magically by themselves once the class problem is solved.


That behaviour and behaviour like it isn't going to disappear just because we have re-organised our economy. It is an ingrained, conditioned, unconscious response to being a man.No, it's not a response to "being a man." It's a response to having been born a man in a specific context, where sexist ideologies are thrust upon you from the time you exit the womb. That is my point about how you can't just stop short by mentioning identity, without interrogating the identity itself, lest you paint a misleadingly static and fatalistic picture about how sexism and racism are the inevitable products of having a penis or melanin deficiencies.


Your view is that women were not oppressed before class societySystematically, as in victims of a sexist structure of power that was reproduced through time? No, I don't think that kind of systematic oppression did exist, and there are reams of cross-cultural anthropological data to demonstrate that point. (If you are interested, you can start with Eleanor Leacock's excellent "Myths of Male Dominance.") There were obviously episodes where individual women might have been victimized in some way because she was a woman and therefore viewed as an easy target. But isolated episodes do not constitute a structure of oppression, and will probably always exist, even after communism is established.

[CyM]

I think the very concept you brought up, of a zero-sum game between white/male/straight workers and workers who face double oppression hits the nail on the head. It is that very idea, the idea that a white worker gains while an arab worker loses, that I am opposed to. It is a reactionary concept, which your example proves. Your example that every job a white worker gets means a doubly oppressed worker being denied one is nothing but the flipside of "they take our jobs".

How does perpetuating this racial solidarity viewpoint to the jobs problem help workers? It does not.

A white worker does not gain from low wages for women and undocumented workers. He is forced to compete, and it drives his wages down. An injury to one is an injury to all.

If there was an economic and material gain for the working class involved with racism, we'd truly be fucked.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Five Year Plan]

I think the very concept you brought up, of a zero-sum game between white/male/straight workers and workers who face double oppression hits the nail on the head. It is that very idea, the idea that a white worker gains while an arab worker loses, that I am opposed to. It is a reactionary concept, which your example proves. Your example that every job a white worker gets means a doubly oppressed worker being denied one is nothing but the flipside of "they take our jobs".

How does perpetuating this racial solidarity viewpoint to the jobs problem help workers? It does not.

A white worker does not gain from low wages for women and undocumented workers. He is forced to compete, and it drives his wages down. An injury to one is an injury to all.

If there was an economic and material gain for the working class involved with racism, we'd truly be fucked.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

You aren't understanding my point, I don't think. It's that the zero-sum game I describe exists only at one level of analysis, a level which presupposes the existence of capitalism. Within the rules of the capitalist game, certain ethnic groups can and do benefit in a way that results in worse conditions of existence for other ethnic groups under capitalism. At the broader level that brings capitalism in the analysis as a variable measured against an alternative, egalitarian way of organizing social production, the relative privilege a white working-class man might enjoy under capitalism doesn't come close to the quality of life he would enjoy under socialism.

The poor black man who doesn't get the working-class job because the racist manager hires the poor white man instead is most certainly hurt by capitalism, as is, ultimately and to a lesser extent, the poor white man who does get the job and is therefore able to make ends meet. But within the confines of capitalism, I don't see how anybody can deny that there is an antagonistic and racialized relationship between the two, with the white worker being far more prone to being assimilated into capitalist/reformist ideology through his participation in (even if not outright endorsement of) a racist structure of oppression. Are you suggesting that the poor white man who gets the job isn't benefiting relative to the poor black man who doesn't? Or are you suggesting that his benefiting can't, by definition, be the result of his racial identity and how it compares with his black job competitor?

To ignore this and leave it at the elementary proposition that capitalism harms all workers is to ignore the ways in which capitalism affects certain groups of workers differently, pitting them against one another as a way of defusing the class struggle against capitalists while maximizing exploitation.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's basically a truism, though, and doesn't go nearly far enough in examining the sources of these power disparities. I don't think anybody here would dispute that white people, on average, are wealthier than people of color, and that men, on average, hold positions of greater political power than do women.

But people do dispute that. And while it may be a 'truism' to you and I, and perhaps many other people on a theoretical level, on a practical level we still continue to see structures of oppression being reinforced, even by those who claim they are aware of their existence and whom wouldn't dare to dispute these facts. That's the issue.


But do white people hold this power by virtue of their identities alone? No, only their identities as they are performed and manifested in different contexts. What this means is you cannot stop at just mentioning identities. The identities themselves, how they are constructed and how they operate, need to be explained and are not natural or obvious at all. So to just stop after correlating identities and power can lead to a highly misleading picture of the nature of racial and gender power, even if you as a person know implicitly (and I acknowledged that you did) that those identities and oppressions are anchored in a deeper structure of power. That was my point.

A point that I understand and agree with. Nevertheless, there are nuances to this oppression that manifest themselves in practical ways that need to be understood on that level. It's all fine and well to have this deeper theoretical understanding, whether it's correct or not, but it still doesn't address the practical nuances of how a white person affects the life of a black person, for example.


I agree absolutely with what you say about revolutionary politics. I just think you can talk about covert relationships and dynamics of power and coercion, operating through certain aspects of a person's social identity, without seeking refuge in the confused dead-ends of privilege theory.

But how do you talk about the way men behave on public transport, how men refer to adult women as girls, how white people clutch onto their bags as a black person walks past etcetc?


You seem to be arguing against a very old fashioned caricature of Marxist revolutionary politics that claims that Marxists are only interested in class, and think that all other problems will fall into line magically by themselves once the class problem is solved.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm asserting that the reality is far more nuanced than this analysis provides.


No, it's not a response to "being a man." It's a response to having been born a man in a specific context, where sexist ideologies are thrust upon you from the time you exit the womb. That is my point about how you can't just stop short by mentioning identity, without interrogating the identity itself, lest you paint a misleadingly static and fatalistic picture about how sexism and racism are the inevitable products of having a penis or melanin deficiencies.

I chose my words badly, but we are essentially in agreement.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the very concept you brought up, of a zero-sum game between white/male/straight workers and workers who face double oppression hits the nail on the head. It is that very idea, the idea that a white worker gains while an arab worker loses, that I am opposed to. It is a reactionary concept, which your example proves. Your example that every job a white worker gets means a doubly oppressed worker being denied one is nothing but the flipside of "they take our jobs".

I think the crucial difference is the real social location of the workers in question - the rhetoric of "They take our jobs!" is premised on the white supremacist stratification (among other divides) of the working class wherein non-white labour is devalued. The flip side of this is that the increased cost of (proportionally overvalued) "white" labour carries with it this arrangement which benefits capital as a whole. Of course, in the "big picture" white labour is actually more affordable insofar as the cost of its reproduction is decreased by the devaluation of other labour (i.e. if all my clothing, food, etc. are produced by devalued non-white labour, it follows . . .).

This could maybe be more clear in looking at gender: if women's labour has tended to be less expensive than men's, why do capitalists hire men? Looked at on a purely individual level, it makes no sense. However, if we step back and look at how capitalist patriarchy functions, the answer becomes more clear: the relative expense of men's labour is premised on the devaluation of women's labour (esp. women's reproductive and affective labour, which is often entirely uncompensated), which, in turn makes both men's and women's labour less expensive. At the same time, working class men have an immediate interest in not paying wages to the mothers of their children, since, of course, most working class men couldn't actually afford even minimum wage for the 24/7/365 labour in question.


How does perpetuating this racial solidarity viewpoint to the jobs problem help workers? It does not.

Context: within capitalism, white workers have an apparent interest in defending white supremacy, and, certainly, an immediate (if hopelessly short-sighted) interest in doing so.
Consequently, what we're talking about isn't "racial" solidarity: it's working class solidarity which, by and large, white workers are antagonistic to (just as the scab, in their immediate individual interests, is up against their class interests). Just as it would be silly to brush off a strike as presents itself as against the interests of particular workers (particularly in "key" industries like transport!), I think it's wrong to dismiss working class solidarity when it's along "key" divisions within the class.


A white worker does not gain from low wages for women and undocumented workers. He is forced to compete, and it drives his wages down. An injury to one is an injury to all.

Certainly, taken as a whole, it does drive wages down for his class, but, taken individually, it proportionally increases his wages on two fronts! First, by driving down the cost of his material reproduction (what if the only food was "local" "organic" and grown without migrant labour? What if the only t-shirts were "Made in America" by union labour?) , and second by reserving for him the highest relative wages.


If there was an economic and material gain for the working class involved with racism, we'd truly be fucked.

And, indeed, we are! At the same time, we're not hopelessly fucked by any means. Certainly, despite the (immediate) interests of scabs, strikes often succeed. Despite the (immediate) interests of bus-riders, transit strikes often win. I think that this can be generalized.

[Light of Lenin]

The problem with discourse of "white privilege" as used by liberals is that it is always discussed in a national context. Moreover, this national context always assumes the immediate present as its subject. Whenever "white privilege" moves outside of these bounds, the liberal proponent always tries to bring it back. "White privilege" is just a fact of existence, one that can only be combated by changing our attitudes, always in line with the Democratic Party apparatus.

When did "white privilege" come into existence? The liberal has no answer. To attempt an answer is to go down a Marxist road, which they dare not tread.

"White Privilege" is intrinsically bound up with the formation of the White Nation. "White Privilege" has no meaning outside of the White Nation.

Where did the White Nation come from? Like all nations, it was formed at a particular time and at a particular place.


What is a nation?

A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people.

This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

The White Nation was formed by the European conquest of North America. As the Italian nation was formed by grouping together of "Romans, Teutons, Etruscans," etc, so the White Nation, which has its location on the North American continent, was formed by the grouping of the many, many different European ethnicities.

The historical formation of the White Nation, and thus the beginning of "White Privilege" as a sociological reality that confronts non-whites in this country, makes the liberal proponent of "white privilege" cringe.

This is because while the liberal can understand a social-phenomenon that s/he labels as "white privilege," they are unable to contemplate not identifying as a "white person." The White Identity is the social-foundation of "white privilege." Without the White Identity, there is no possibility of "white privilege."

In the mind of the liberal, no different than in the minds of the vast majority of "Americans," the White Identity is founded on the lie of the existence of a "white" "race." "Race" does not exist in the mind of the liberal as a ideological construct. "Race" for the liberal proponents of "White Privilege" is axiomatic. There is a thing called the "white" "race" which, for reasons the liberal isn't totally clear about (in his/her own mind), has "privilege" over the other "races."

To contemplate the historical formation of the White Nation and the White Identity is to fundamentally challenge the racialist conceptions of "white privilege."

What was the largest mass lynching in all of US history? In 1891, 11 Italians were lynched in New Orleans. This event occurred even after the Civil War, which had cemented the White Nation as a reality, supposedly forever settling the contradiction between already established Western European Settlers and the newly arrived masses of HUNKIES, DAGOS, WOPS, POMEYS, MICKS, KRAUTS, HYMIES, etc, mostly from Eastern Europe. This horde of Eastern Europeans and the Johnny-come-lately arrivals of Western Europeans to the "New" "World" demanded the American "dream" of becoming Settlers.

As the liberal contemplates this reality, something happens in their mind. What could ending "White Privilege" mean but putting an end to the White Identity and the White Nation? But the liberal would never dream of reverting to an earlier state of being. The liberal cherishes their White Identity. The liberal would never abandon the White Identity. The stupid liberals can't even conceive of "whiteness" as anything but something hardwired into their genetic code. The clever ones know their privilege depends on the White Identity. For them, "white privilege" theory is just a way to reinforce the White Identity on the masses, thus forever ensuring their own "privilege" within the imperialist system.

[blake 3:17]

always in line with the Democratic Party apparatus.

The universalization of American politics gets very very boring...

[Dodo]

Would you say majority of contemporary feminisim goes into this? I just got back from a feminist theory group and while there are bits I can relate to, their post-modern relativism and focus on -subject- made me go crazy.
They kept talking about daily subjective shit and their counter-argument was "oh you should say this act like that" blablabla. They did claim though they see this of course in a social context, its just the way they dealt with it looked to me like detached from reality. Lets say "bourgeouis" feminism...

[WelcomeToTheParty]

This is because while the liberal can understand a social-phenomenon that s/he labels as "white privilege," they are unable to contemplate not identifying as a "white person."

...

"Race" does not exist in the mind of the liberal as a ideological construct. "Race" for the liberal proponents of "White Privilege" is axiomatic. There is a thing called the "white" "race" which, for reasons the liberal isn't totally clear about (in his/her own mind), has "privilege" over the other "races."

...

As the liberal contemplates this reality, something happens in their mind. What could ending "White Privilege" mean but putting an end to the White Identity and the White Nation? But the liberal would never dream of reverting to an earlier state of being. The liberal cherishes their White Identity. The liberal would never abandon the White Identity. The stupid liberals can't even conceive of "whiteness" as anything but something hardwired into their genetic code.

The clever ones know their privilege depends on the White Identity. For them, "white privilege" theory is just a way to reinforce the White Identity on the masses, thus forever ensuring their own "privilege" within the imperialist system.

I don't think this is true at all. You can be a liberal and fully aware of the fluidity and lack of material basis for racial constructs. Suggesting that the "liberal cherishes their White Identity" is complete nonsense, while as leftists we oppose liberals it's not necessary (or reasonable) for us to claim they are all consciously racist.

Privilege Theory is a useful tool to remind us of the different experiences different proletarians face and to be mindful of that fact in thought and action.

[fugazi]

The social justice internet phenomenon comes from here
nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf
I've just skimmed this and what she's saying seems to make sense
although I'm not sure as to how its in contradiction or competition with Marxism

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

What is it and what is the point of it? Someone linked to this on face book (http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/notes-on-privilege-theorys-critique-of-marxism-3/). I don't know if this what usually passes as privilege theory, but the author is apparently trying to say that the theory is opposed to what they consider to be Marxism. I'm notcing quite a few anarchists taking this up as if it was some sort of opposition to marxism.

Why do people think its a theory, as if it isn't self evident and already proven that privilege exists? Institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, cissexism and economic disparity exist. That isn't theory. That is fact.

[Devrim]

Why do people think its a theory, as if it isn't self evident and already proven that privilege exists? Institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, cissexism and economic disparity exist. That isn't theory. That is fact.

The word 'theory' doesn't imply that something is not 'true', or has not been 'proven'.

Take the 'Theory of Gravity' for example.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Someone (devrim maybe) kind of brought this up in another thread, but why is it that privilege theory doesn't seem to resonate with anyone outside of 'anglosphere' countries? Surely the conditions that lead to different realities for different groups in the US or UK are also present in Brazil, Iran, China, etc. So why the disconnect?

It's not just that it doesn't resonate outside the anglosphere. It is virtually unheard of outside the anglosphere.

Devrim

[CyM]

Although, yes, in this case, we are questioning whether a straight white male worker is privileged by the fact of being oppressed less than his arab coworker.

Spoiler alert: it is not a privilege to be stabbed once instead of twice.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Comrade Chernov]

Privilege "Theory" is basically the recognizing of the certain reactionary social norms that have silently permeated the proletariat in order to keep it separated and constantly sparring with itself. In order to have class unity, proletarians have to eradicate these outdated (if not entirely false) social norms and discriminatory attitudes, which include but may not necessarily be limited to:

- Racism
- Sexism
- Homophobia/Biphobia/etc
- Transphobia/NBphobia/etc
- Ableism

I'm probably forgetting some, but those are the big ones. A successful revolution requires class consciousness. Class consciousness requires class unity. Class unity requires an end to discrimination and harmful reactionary "ethics" and "morals". Anything "traditional" and anything promoting "family values" isn't to be trusted.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Privilege "Theory" is basically the recognizing of the certain reactionary social norms that have silently permeated the proletariat in order to keep it separated and constantly sparring with itself. In order to have class unity, proletarians have to eradicate these outdated (if not entirely false) social norms and discriminatory attitudes, which include but may not necessarily be limited to:

- Racism
- Sexism
- Homophobia/Biphobia/etc
- Transphobia/NBphobia/etc
- Ableism

I'm probably forgetting some, but those are the big ones. A successful revolution requires class consciousness. Class consciousness requires class unity. Class unity requires an end to discrimination and harmful reactionary "ethics" and "morals". Anything "traditional" and anything promoting "family values" isn't to be trusted.

Rather than trying to list all of the "isms" or "____phobias", I think it's useful to just bust out bell hooks's phrase, "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". I think, to a large degree, while specificities are important, it's impossible to list them all, because they are all specific, and interlinked (so, to be real, you'd also have to list specific combinations to be really thorough - "ablist transmisogyny", "racist homophobia", and so on). Instead of trying to make a comprehensive list of all-the-ways-anyone-ever-could-be-oppressed, it makes more sense, in my opinion, to look at their real underpinnings in the capitalist totality (which, if you take a properly historical view, is bound up in gender/patriarchy, colonialism/white supremacy . . .).

In this way, it's not only that "class consciousness requires class unity" but that class consciousness, class unity, and communism are all "bound up" in the same way (or is it the opposite way?) that white supremacy, patriarchy, and capital are: their overcoming in-and-of-itself necessitates communist practice, and vice versa. This is where liberal understandings really fail - they see race, gender, etc. as identities to be negotiated within capital (thus, constantly reifying them), rather than to be transcended in the creation of communism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-black-revolution-lorenzo-ervin

anarchism and the black revolution is really poorly written, quite rambly and confused at times, but the dude that wrote it has a lot of clarity on the subject of racism against blacks in the USA and the essential ideas the black panthers originally fought for. It is a really good read for someone who wants to understand:

a) the extra oppression felt by black workers
b) the potential political solutions to such oppression (although i'd stress I don't agree with everything he says)