Question about privledge theory [Archive]

Sea

15th April 2015, 00:04

As I'm sure most of you are aware, there seem to be three popular ways of looking at the gap in wages by ethnicity and gender.

1. Those who make less are more disadvantaged than those who make more.
2. Those who make more are more privileged than those who make less.
3. Some combination of 2 and 1.

All of these things of course are in addition to the obvious disadvantage we experience as proletarians.

My question is aimed primarily at those who believe that privilege (#2) is responsible for the wage gap and pertains primarily to the wage gap between ethnicity. As a person of the asian persuasian (see what I did there) I became overwhelmed with a feeling of smugness and the desire to argue with strangers on the internet as soon as a graph similar to this one was shown in class today:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/images/ted_20130724.png

My question is: Are asians really more privileged than whites?

Sasha

15th April 2015, 00:32

I assume this is about ethnic groups in the US? If I would make a guess it has to do with that the US, outside of Hawaii doesn't have much of a "poor" immigration of Asian people, most immigrant from Asia are employed and in high paying jobs in healthcare and IT and science at that.
So the numbers are skewered.

Redistribute the Rep

15th April 2015, 00:36

Well, I would argue no. The gender wage gap between is due mostly to child rearing responsibilities falling on women. Also, identical resume studies (where the only difference is the gender or ethnicity of the name) reveal some is due to stereotyping and bias. Hispanics and blacks have less educational opportunities and face de facto segregation, resulting in lower wages. That's not to say lower wages necessarily means less privilege, but it can result from it. Much like how high suicide rates in the lgbt community are a result of prejudice, but suicide rates aren't necessarily indicative of such (rates are higher in men and the wealthy).

While Asians have higher wages, they face other issues that whites don't, like being fetishized in the media for example. Also, White is seen as sort of the 'default'. I hung a lot with the Asian crowd in high school, and they talked and joked about race much more than my white friends. I guess whites have the privilege of being 'colorblind' to race, whereas if you're another race you're othered and have to take it on as an identity.

Atsumari

15th April 2015, 01:03

Sea

15th April 2015, 01:20

First of all, privilege theory is a load of shit.Be careful, someone who believes it will probably call you racist for that.
See this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lets-talk-privilege-t190580/index.html
Plenty of people here, such as Quail and The Federal Underclass, have come to the defense of privilege theory. The latter even accused Devrim of sexism for making points similar broadly to yours:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2788881&postcount=18
Oh heavens!

Ideas of "thin privilege" and "cis privilege" and indeed "white privilege" seem to be gaining traction elsewhere as well:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/10/lets-talk-about-thin-privilege/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/examples-straight-privilege/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/white-privilege-explained/
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/list-of-cisgender-privileges/
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/11/30-examples-of-male-privilege/
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/

Innumerable other examples can be found on other feminist-oriented sites.

I'm afraid to express the opinion that it is all bullshit because well-respected members of this forum community will call me names that could damage my credibility among fellow leftists. What ever shall I do?

Let's return to the topic of privilege theory as it relates to asian privilege. Just so you know I'm not totally flinging shit at the wall for my own amusement. The main thing that I hope to accomplish in this thread is that someone who does believe in privilege theory can explain to me things like asian and jewish success and how the dynamics of white priveldge can allow such things to occur in the first place.

Sinister Intents

15th April 2015, 01:25

First of all, privilege theory is a load of shit.

I'd have to say Atsumari tackled this well, but denying privilege outright? I mean come on. You're a cisgender male? I don't know. Generally speaking, white, cisgender, heterosexual men are blind to there privilege in society. Economically speaking men get better wages and don't get to experience the structurally generated horrors women and LGBTQIAP folk face.

Sea

15th April 2015, 01:27

The stereotypes of Asians fit so well into white supremacy, it is ridiculous. The reason this model minority bullshit is so dangerous was that it was created to condemn the Civil Rights movement and to ignore problems in black America after the LA Riots.
Here are the general stereotypes about Asians in the most patronizing way possible
-Hard working. They actually get a job and study than to complain about the system.
-Does not have a problem with authority
-Apolitical
-Smart, but not creative and unable to lead.

Gender Stereotypes
Males
-Nerdy (Tech support)
-Asexual martial artist
-Effeminate
-Sexually incompetent
-Misogynists to their own women

Females
-Sexy
-Sexually submissive, especially to white men
-Remembers what being a "woman" means. Is not infected with feminism.
-Educated, but will not threaten you with it.
-Need American liberty from Asian misogyny.

Basically, the "privilege" of Asians is that of a servant. I do not meant to defend Asians participating in Silicon Valley by any means, but the number of Asians working there and how many hold any leadership positions is pretty disgusting.Oh perfect! You're just the sort of fellow I'm looking for.

So far a problem I see with your argument is that, when you consider stereotypes about blacks, it is hard to see how either set of stereotypes plays into "white privileged" better than the other:

Here are the general stereotypes about blacks in the most patronizing way possible

-Lazy
-Vote Democrat
-Dumb but musical

Gender Stereotypes
Males
-Strong (Manual labor)
-Masculine, knows what it means to be "manly"
-Big cock (how else do you want me to phrase it?)
-Misogynists to their own women. Stereotyped more in this regard way more than asians. Accept use of words like "*****" "hoe" etc

Females
-Sexy, exotic
-Sexually submissive, especially to white men
-Remembers what being a "woman" means. Is not infected with feminism.
-Uneducated, intellectually submissive
-Need white assistance from black misogyny.

As you can see, both sets of stereotypes are incredibly demeaning and serve to glorify whites by contrast.

Sinister Intents

15th April 2015, 01:35

Sea

15th April 2015, 01:38

I'd have to say Atsumari tackled this well, but denying privilege outright? I mean come on. You're a cisgender male? I don't know. Generally speaking, white, cisgender, heterosexual men are blind to there privilege in society. Economically speaking men get better wages and don't get to experience the structurally generated horrors women and LGBTQIAP folk face.You're white right? I don't know. If you are that means you have just as many privilege points as I do unless you want to start debating statistical weightings.

I'm not denying privilege outright either. My personal opinion is that privileged and disadvantage are two angles to describe the same damn thing and that the only difference is how you word it.

I also think that both terms are woefully inadequate to describe the complex dynamics of discrimination in our society. That's why we're discussing asian and jewish salaries. Both minorities that have been discriminated and persecuted against de jure and de facto, and yet make more money on average than whites. Single-word attempts to define discrimination and dumb down the concept for shatter from this. Personally I suspect it starts somewhere in how the history of discrimination is taught in public schools, but that's a topic for another thread.

See also my rebuttal to Atsumari's post. All racist stereotypes serve to belittle one group at the expensive of the dominant one, and so all stereotypes play into "white privilege". It is mistaken to single out stereotypes against asians and then use this to plug up a hole in privilege theory.

edit: I see your new reply. Hold on...

Atsumari

15th April 2015, 01:50

Oh perfect! You're just the sort of fellow I'm looking for.

So far a problem I see with your argument is that, when you consider stereotypes about blacks, it is hard to see how either set of stereotypes plays into "white privileged" better than the other:

Here are the general stereotypes about blacks in the most patronizing way possible

-Lazy
-Vote Democrat
-Dumb but musical

Gender Stereotypes
Males
-Strong (Manual labor)
-Masculine, knows what it means to be "manly"
-Big cock (how else do you want me to phrase it?)
-Misogynists to their own women. Stereotyped more in this regard way more than asians. Accept use of words like "*****" "hoe" etc

Females
-Sexy, exotic
-Sexually submissive, especially to white men
-Remembers what being a "woman" means. Is not infected with feminism.
-Uneducated, intellectually submissive
-Need white assistance from black misogyny.

As you can see, both sets of stereotypes are incredibly demeaning and serve to glorify whites by contrast.
I would disagree with the statement blacks and Asians are in a rather similar situation. For one, Asian Americans with the exception of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Americans tend to be better off economically and socially. And two, other than the utilization of the Bill Cosby image, the Magical Negro, and the model minority stereotypes of Ghanan and Nigerian immigrants, the image of black Americans is outright toxic, especially in the wake of the Obama election and Black Lives Matter. Another huge difference is that with Asians, there is a perception that you can feel safe around them. Around blacks, you do not and if they move into well off community, there is flight.
Lots of Asians buy into the image provided to them because at a quick glance, it is pretty flattering and people happily list them. Ask people to list sterotypes about blacks without a camera around them and it will get quiet because we know what they are thinking.
https://youtu.be/dN6VUQUF3ks?t=2m46s

Sea

15th April 2015, 02:10

Black people get to experience institutionalised racism. They get to experience lesser pay, discrimination, unfounded hatred, and so on. My girlfriend specifically got refused a job as a dish washer because the person thst worked at that Denny's didn't want to work with a black women, and nor thought she could do the job because he deemed it "men's work." Black people don't have white privilege because they weren't born in that demographic. The American state still had racist laws, there's the existence of the fact that children are literally taught to be racist. I could keep going on and on..........

See:
Alien Land Law, California, 1913
Page Act, 1875
Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882
Geary Act, 1892
Immigration Act of 1917
Immigration Act of 1924

The anti-Chinese pogrom in Los Angeles, 1871
The anti-Chinese pogrom in Denver, 1880
The anti-Chinese pogrom in Rock Springs, 1885
The anti-Chinese pogrom in Coal Creek, 1885
The anti-Chinese pogrom in Tacoma, 1885
Burning of Chinatown in Seattle, 1885
The anti-Chinese pogrom in Seattle, 1886

I could go on and on and on. Racism against asians has a long and bloody history in the United States. A common stereotype I have heard is that the only non-technology jobs an asian is good at is washing clothes and cooking.Plenty of racists (yay weasel words) also say that the only non-agricultural jobs a black is good at are tapdancing and shoe shining. Both ethnic groups have a long history of discrimination and a plethora of discussing stereotypes against them. Both groups get to experience institutionalized racism. Both have had racist laws passed against them and even though such laws are hushed over now because the bourgeoisie has PR to worry about the discrimination still continues. In light of this I find Atsumari's proposition that asians are honorary servants of white hegemony to be demeaning, historically inaccurate and racist in itself.

Atsumari

15th April 2015, 02:12

Asians in 19th and 20th Century America lived differently than the Asians in 21st Century. Plus, Asians, Chinese as well immigrated to America during different times and the economic situation of each immigration wave was very different. And I wished I said this before, but "Asians" is a bit too broad for this conversation given that the situation of a Taiwanese American is incredibly different than that of Cambodians and Laotian Americans.

Sea

15th April 2015, 02:36

I would disagree with the statement blacks and Asians are in a rather similar situation. For one, Asian Americans with the exception of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Americans tend to be better off economicallyYep, that's what the topic is about -- an apparent contradiction between reality and what a theory of ultimate white privilege would suggest.
and socially.Quick question - How do you measure this? I assume by the amount of discrimination faced in everyday life, correct? I'd be very interested in seeing some numbers on that.

And two, other than the utilization of the Bill Cosby image, the Magical Negro, and the model minority stereotypes of Ghanan and Nigerian immigrants, the image of black Americans is outright toxic, especially in the wake of the Obama election and Black Lives Matter.I would argue that both of those, even the pre-scandal Bill Cosby image, are as toxic as anything else, just as the stereotype that asians are good at tech support is toxic. "Friendly" stereotypes are a myth. Between the stereotypes attached to asians that you pointed out and the stereotypes attached to blacks that I pointed out, it doesn't seem that one is better off than the other.
Another huge difference is that with Asians, there is a perception that you can feel safe around them. Around blacks, you do not and if they move into well off community, there is flight.This is a good point. Docile and brutish are both toxic stereotypes, but I suppose you are right in saying that, as a practical matter, a stereotype of brutishness is more damaging.
Ask people to list sterotypes about blacks without a camera around them and it will get quiet because we know what they are thinkingNobody can read minds and trying to divine what someone is thinking from the color of their skin is not likely to get us anywhere constructive.
And I wished I said this before, but "Asians" is a bit too broad for this conversation given that the situation of a Taiwanese American is incredibly different than that of Cambodians and Laotian Americans.I recognize this, but since we are just using specific cases to address the broader issue of undue bumps in the trend towards "whiter = wealthier" and how this relates to white privilege and white wealth, it is unlikely to affect the outcome of the debate. We could just as easily be using Irish-Americans at the turn of the previous century as an example to explore a dip in the general trend.
Plus, Asians, Chinese as well immigrated to America during different times and the economic situation of each immigration wave was very different.We are considering what has happened to people in a discriminatory atmosphere after immigration and the passage of several generations. These are important points but hey are not strictly relevant.
I don't want to derail the thread, but.....
Yes, working class men get better wages and so forth, but they still do not receive the full fruits of their labour. All proletarians, regardless of gender, are disadvantaged by capitalism, just some more than others.You there! Mister penis balls privilege man! Do your derailing elsewhere, this is my thread! :tt2:

#FF0000

15th April 2015, 02:47

I don't want to derail the thread, but.....
Yes, working class men get better wages and so forth, but they still do not receive the full fruits of their labour. All proletarians, regardless of gender, are disadvantaged by capitalism, just some more than others.

Isn't that what privilege theory seeks to explain, though?

Atsumari

15th April 2015, 03:19

Quick question - How do you measure this? I assume by the amount of discrimination faced in everyday life, correct? I'd be very interested in seeing some numbers on that.
Police brutality, ability to find a job, and access to good education. Police brutality statistics do not provide any info on Asians, but CIA database showed that Asians as a whole had the lowest levels of crime which says something about police relations with the Asian community as a whole, just as long you are not Cambodian, Laotian, or Vietnamese.
https://loudmouthedbookworm.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/signed-statement-in-support-of-victims-of-police-brutality-in-providence-ri/
In terms of education
http://www.stateofworkingwa.org/2011/swwa/images/charts/unemployment-race-education-wa.png

I would argue that both of those, even the pre-scandal Bill Cosby image, are as toxic as anything else, just as the stereotype that asians are good at tech support is toxic. "Friendly" stereotypes are a myth. Between the stereotypes attached to asians that you pointed out and the stereotypes attached to blacks that I pointed out, it doesn't seem that one is better off than the other.

I do not want to debate the image of African Americans too much since I am not black myself, but I will just say that that these are not similar. "Criticism" (not saying it does not exist, but we know those white conservatives who suddenly support women's rights in these situations) of black misogyny has often been used as a Culture War tactic whereas Asian misogyny has been used as a colonial legacy since America has been at war in Asian nations.
And when it comes to racism towards black women, it is pretty hateful rather than colonial perversion. I could tell you all the awkward silences I got whenever I told someone I dated a black girl before as well pretty much males of all demographics saying all these horrible things about black females about how beastly, "*****y," and how they are not submissive.
I have met Asians, Asian men especially who told me they would love to be white when they see some of my white features for being mixed, but when I asked them if they would want to be black, they always said no, and often times said a lot of racist shit.

I recognize this, but since we are just using specific cases to address the broader issue of undue bumps in the trend towards "whiter = wealthier" and how this relates to white privilege and white wealth, it is unlikely to affect the outcome of the debate. We could just as easily be using Irish-Americans at the turn of the previous century as an example to explore a dip in the general trend.
I was going to make the statement that Asian Americans are not that different than European and Jewish immigrants earlier, but it may be going off track.
The Irish and Jews became white because they were able to integrate easily, especially with how they looked. No matter how hard Asians try to integrate, we will always be foreigners because we do not look like white people.
Blacks on the other hand came as slaves. There is a world of difference between freed slaves and hated immigrants.

Cliff Paul

15th April 2015, 04:49

Isn't that what privilege theory seeks to explain, though?

I find that lot of leftists that claim to disagree with privilege theory don't really disagree with any of its tenants, they just disagree with the term 'privilege theory'. To a certain extant, I think they are right. Telling whites or men that they are 'privileged' because they don't suffer from institutionalized racism or sexism is patronizing and doesn't really help to create an unified movement. Not that whites or men or cisgender people or heterosexual people, etc. don't benefit from these sorts of power dynamics (because they do), but there's got to be a better way to talk about these issues without being so divisive.

Cliff Paul

15th April 2015, 04:51

The Irish and Jews became white because they were able to integrate easily, especially with how they looked.

Compared to asian-americans yes, but I hardly think that the irish and jews had an easy time integrating (I also don't think jews have ever fully integrated into white culture).

Mr. Piccolo

15th April 2015, 05:20

#FF0000

15th April 2015, 06:11

This is why I am skeptical about the usefulness of privilege theory. It takes away from the real issue, which is class, capitalist vs. laborer. A wealthy

But race, class and gender in the United States are very clearly intertwined in very uncomfortable and ugly ways. I think saying "class is the real issue" to the exclusion of race and sex and gender is a profound mistake to make.

I feel that definitions of privilege based on gender or race/ethnicity tend to play into the hands of conservatives who are only too happy to avoid the issue of class and instead discuss more essentialist categories. It is really their "turf" what with the typically conservative nature of nationalism and other forms of tribalism. How is race/gender/sex any more "essentialist" a category than class? I won't disagree that a lot of people do fall into some vulgar and unsophisticated thinking when it comes to this stuff, and a class analysis is vital, but it definitely doesn't say everything there is to say about capitalist societies.

Asians, for example, are used as a "model minority" to hammer away at race-based (as opposed to class-based) policies designed to help less successful minority groups. In this way, capitalists divide workers along ethnic, racial, or other essentialist lines.

Yes, and companies that make bank on ecological destruction try to say that people exhaling contributes to global warming. That, just like the "model minority" trope, is a myth. I don't see how ignoring the racism or sexism that is obviously present is supposed to 'unite' the working class. To me, it seems like such "color-blindness" what liberals and conservatives alike want to see.

Mr. Piccolo

15th April 2015, 07:59

But race, class and gender in the United States are very clearly intertwined in very uncomfortable and ugly ways. I think saying "class is the real issue" to the exclusion of race and sex and gender is a profound mistake to make.

You are correct, you cannot completely ignore race or gender because they have an impact on class relations, and discrimination based on race and gender is very real.

How is race/gender/sex any more "essentialist" a category than class? I won't disagree that a lot of people do fall into some vulgar and unsophisticated thinking when it comes to this stuff, and a class analysis is vital, but it definitely doesn't say everything there is to say about capitalist societies.

Race/gender/sex are for the most part seen as innate and unchanging biological realities. This fits in well with conservative attempts to naturalize capitalism and the current distribution of resources. So, the argument goes, if different racial groups have different average incomes it is because they differ in their natural capabilities, such as intelligence.

A less extreme version of this argument is the good culture vs. bad culture theory. But ultimately the point is the same: it is not your position relative to the means of production that determines your life, but some innate aspect of your person.

Class is a relatively more fluid concept because people can enter or fall out of the capitalist class, although it may not happen that often. It is not a biological reality but an economic and political reality.

Yes, and companies that make bank on ecological destruction try to say that people exhaling contributes to global warming. That, just like the "model minority" trope, is a myth. I don't see how ignoring the racism or sexism that is obviously present is supposed to 'unite' the working class. To me, it seems like such "color-blindness" what liberals and conservatives alike want to see.

Conservative and liberal color blindness is problematic because it lacks class consciousness, not because it is "color blind." When a conservative or liberal talks about being "color blind" they mean it in the meritocratic, individualistic sense that forms a structural support for capitalism. This same meritocratic myth is what has fueled the "model minority" idea. The designation of being a model minority is a symbol of having "made it." You now have carte blanche to attack other minorities for having not "made it."

Socialist color blindness on the other hand, is based on the recognition that workers are united by their economic position relative to capitalists regardless of income or other differences between workers of different racial/ethnic/gender or other identities.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th April 2015, 11:21

I find that lot of leftists that claim to disagree with privilege theory don't really disagree with any of its tenants, they just disagree with the term 'privilege theory'. To a certain extant, I think they are right. Telling whites or men that they are 'privileged' because they don't suffer from institutionalized racism or sexism is patronizing and doesn't really help to create an unified movement. Not that whites or men or cisgender people or heterosexual people, etc. don't benefit from these sorts of power dynamics (because they do), but there's got to be a better way to talk about these issues without being so divisive.

I think people on RL use the term "privilege theory" too loosely. Privilege theory originated in the late eighties, as a liberal (by which I mean the first essays about privilege theory were written by supporters of the Democratic Party in the US) analysis of race etc. Among other things, it claimed that political action should only be done by the "privileged", whereas those who do not "have privilege" are stuck with "consciousness raising" and other horrible remnants of radical feminism from the seventies.

It can, I suppose, be used a bit more loosely, to refer to theories that stress "privilege" as opposed to oppression. These are still pretty bad analyses, though - instead of locating the source of oppression in capitalism they locate it in "privilege". First of all, not being savaged by the bourgeois system quite as much is not anyone in their right mind would call "privilege", yet we're supposed to just blindly accept that a gay black man is oh so much privileged than a gay black woman, because while the former is oppressed to a horrific degree, the latter is oppressed more. In practice this ends up as a bizarre quasi-religious hierarchy of persecution, with people (most of them genuinely privileged as the word is used outside of "radical" academic circles) scrambling to either invent ways in which they are oppressed, or appoint themselves spokesmen for the poor underprivileged people (by which the sancrosanct nature of these people passes to them).

Second, this effectively treats not being oppressed as some sort of limited resource, blaming people who are not as oppressed instead of the system that causes oppression and carries it out, just as the bourgeoisie here constantly try to set low-paid workers against not-quite-as-low-paid workers in the public transportation company.

I don't think it will do to say "well we can just focus on class", though. First of all the proletariat has a vanguard role in the defense of all of the oppressed. Second, if you don't understand things like racism and misogyny, you don't understand capitalism.

Rafiq

15th April 2015, 12:42

Privilege theory was built and refined with the tacit assumption that the racial, sexual oppression of old had become crystallized and unable to reproduce itself affirmatively- the culmination of centuries of oppression is all that remains, but we who "know better" can stop it.

#FF0000

15th April 2015, 18:32

Race/gender/sex are for the most part seen as innate and unchanging biological realities. This fits in well with conservative attempts to naturalize capitalism and the current distribution of resources. So, the argument goes, if different racial groups have different average incomes it is because they differ in their natural capabilities, such as intelligence.

A less extreme version of this argument is the good culture vs. bad culture theory. But ultimately the point is the same: it is not your position relative to the means of production that determines your life, but some innate aspect of your person.

I'm sorry but this is all too much of a leap. Privilege theory does not presume that race or sex is a strict biological category. The entire idea of "privilege" isn't based on innate ability but on structural discrimination and bigotry. What you're saying here, essentially, is that because someone with a poor understanding of race could come to stupid conclusions with privilege theory, that privilege theory is bad. That's ridiculous. People have been doing the same thing with Marxism for almost 200 years, yet here we are.

Class is a relatively more fluid concept because people can enter or fall out of the capitalist class, although it may not happen that often. It is not a biological reality but an economic and political reality.

People who talk about privilege theory say the same thing about race and gender though. They talk about how whiteness is akin to arbitrary membership to a club that ethnic europeans had to struggle to be included in. "Gender is a spectrum" and all that.

Conservative and liberal color blindness is problematic because it lacks class consciousness, not because it is "color blind."

I strongly disagree -- it's problematic because it pretends that race and skin-color are not factors in how people are treated or in the access they have to educational, occupational, healthy etc. resources. It fails even in its own standard of being meritocratic, and just continues to reinforce the same old racism.

When a conservative or liberal talks about being "color blind" they mean it in the meritocratic, individualistic sense that forms a structural support for capitalism. This same meritocratic myth is what has fueled the "model minority" idea. The designation of being a model minority is a symbol of having "made it." You now have carte blanche to attack other minorities for having not "made it."

But the "Model Minority" myth is also a cudgel to blame other groups for their situation. The argument goes that asian-americans faced generations of systemic violence and discrimination as well, but "made it" anyway. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that poverty among Asian-Americans is higher than white Americans, and that most Asian americans who have money only have because their family came to America with it.

Socialist color blindness on the other hand, is based on the recognition that workers are united by their economic position relative to capitalists regardless of income or other differences between workers of different racial/ethnic/gender or other identities.

But then ignores the fact that black workers face poverty, violence, and all of the problems that comes with being working class, at a higher rate than white workers? This is something that simply can't be ignored and hand-waved away by saying "well, class is the real (i.e. only)problem".

Mr. Piccolo

15th April 2015, 20:59

I'm sorry but this is all too much of a leap. Privilege theory does not presume that race or sex is a strict biological category. The entire idea of "privilege" isn't based on innate ability but on structural discrimination and bigotry. What you're saying here, essentially, is that because someone with a poor understanding of race could come to stupid conclusions with privilege theory, that privilege theory is bad. That's ridiculous. People have been doing the same thing with Marxism for almost 200 years, yet here we are.

But privilege theory, as opposed to a more typical class analysis, presents an opening for conservatives to turn the argument into one about innate differences. It is the reason why they love the Model Minority trope so much. It is a ready answer to the argument from privilege. I suppose I am asking if the argument from privilege is really the most useful one in dealing with the Model Minority trope.

People who talk about privilege theory say the same thing about race and gender though. They talk about how whiteness is akin to arbitrary membership to a club that ethnic europeans had to struggle to be included in. "Gender is a spectrum" and all that.

But how can this be applied to non-European Model Minorities like Asians? Are Asians "honorary whites" under privilege theory?

I strongly disagree -- it's problematic because it pretends that race and skin-color are not factors in how people are treated or in the access they have to educational, occupational, healthy etc. resources. It fails even in its own standard of being meritocratic, and just continues to reinforce the same old racism.

But even within supposedly privileged groups there are forms of discrimination. Appalachian whites face discrimination based on negative stereotypes of their ancestry. This is why some people find privilege theory to be troublesome. Can we say that the children of Appalachian farmers are more privileged than the children of a successful black entrepreneur?

This is why I stated that socialist color blindness is superior to the conservative and liberal versions because we understand that class is the final and most important determinant of privilege, not race or a similar category.

But the "Model Minority" myth is also a cudgel to blame other groups for their situation. The argument goes that asian-americans faced generations of systemic violence and discrimination as well, but "made it" anyway. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that poverty among Asian-Americans is higher than white Americans, and that most Asian americans who have money only have because their family came to America with it.

Right. And the Model Minority trope is also used to divide people into competing tribes. Hence the controversial nature of privilege theory because it seems to fall into this same trap. Are we to say that Asians are more privileged than other non-European ethnic groups and this accounts for their relative success? Privilege theory seems to encourage a strange competition to see who is the most miserable, oppressed minority group in society. Is this healthy?

But then ignores the fact that black workers face poverty, violence, and all of the problems that comes with being working class, at a higher rate than white workers? This is something that simply can't be ignored and hand-waved away by saying "well, class is the real (i.e. only)problem".

I should not have intimated that class was the only real problem, but it is far and away the most important. I worry that privilege theory is needlessly divisive because it seems to suggest that even poor white workers are somehow a privileged group. Most poor whites would be offended by the idea that they are privileged, so how is privilege theory going to help us get these folks on our side?

#FF0000

15th April 2015, 21:24

But privilege theory, as opposed to a more typical class analysis, presents an opening for conservatives to turn the argument into one about innate differences. It is the reason why they love the Model Minority trope so much. It is a ready answer to the argument from privilege. I suppose I am asking if the argument from privilege is really the most useful one in dealing with the Model Minority trope.

I think it is because the Model Minority tropes only works if one is ignorant of the actual dynamics at work -- and one can turn a lot of models and theories on their heads if one is ignorant of why it wouldn't make sense.

But how can this be applied to non-European Model Minorities like Asians? Are Asians "honorary whites" under privilege theory?
No, because like I said, the "model minority" is a myth -- Asian-Americans aren't categorically better off than whites. It's a relatively small demographic which is highly polarized, which is why Asian-Americans can have the highest average take-home pay, while also having higher rates of poverty than white americans.

But even within supposedly privileged groups there are forms of discrimination. Appalachian whites face discrimination based on negative stereotypes of their ancestry. This is why some people find privilege theory to be troublesome. Can we say that the children of Appalachian farmers are more privileged than the children of a successful black entrepreneur?Only in that appalachian whites don't have the burden of structural racism to deal with. For one to be in a "privileged" group doesn't mean they have an easy life.

This is why I stated that socialist color blindness is superior to the conservative and liberal versions because we understand that class is the final and most important determinant of privilege, not race or a similar category.
I don't know if that's necessarily true, though, because black people are worse off than their white counterparts in every income bracket. I think race needs to be taken more seriously by socialists, but not to the exclusion of class (white poverty and white incarceration are both rendered sort of "invisible" by most people who treat these things as problems that only affect black people).

Right. And the Model Minority trope is also used to divide people into competing tribes. Hence the controversial nature of privilege theory because it seems to fall into this same trap. Are we to say that Asians are more privileged than other non-European ethnic groups and this accounts for their relative success? Privilege theory seems to encourage a strange competition to see who is the most miserable, oppressed minority group in society. Is this healthy?Now this, I think, is a good criticism, and one I don't have an answer for. I don't think the "oppression olympics" phenomenon is necessarily inherent in privilege theory but it's hella common in activist circles that use it.

I should not have intimated that class was the only real problem, but it is far and away the most important. I worry that privilege theory is needlessly divisive because it seems to suggest that even poor white workers are somehow a privileged group. Most poor whites would be offended by the idea that they are privileged, so how is privilege theory going to help us get these folks on our side?
Yeah I don't think the name is very good. Ask someone if they think that black folks have it harder on average, and they might agree, but tell them they've got privilege over them and they'd take offense.

But either way, we can all agree that white, male workers, who certain have it rough, don't have to deal with sexism or racism like female and non-white workers have to deal with, right? How is saying that different, in substance, from privilege theory?

Redistribute the Rep

15th April 2015, 21:39

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see the "oppression Olympics" thing far more in whites who think having no White history month and not being able to say the n-word is persecution.

BIXX

15th April 2015, 21:42

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see the "oppression Olympics" thing far more in whites who think having no White history month and not being able to say the n-word is persecution.
I see it a lot in white people who try to silence others by being more oppressed than them.

#FF0000

15th April 2015, 21:46

I see it most often in whites who are jockeying for position in some activist sub-culture or grouplet by shutting down other people or demonstrating how socially aware they are. Usually wealthy white folks w/ the social capital to know how to navigate these liberal NGO spaces.

BIXX

15th April 2015, 21:58

Mr. Piccolo

16th April 2015, 00:41

I think it is because the Model Minority tropes only works if one is ignorant of the actual dynamics at work -- and one can turn a lot of models and theories on their heads if one is ignorant of why it wouldn't make sense.

Right. I think conservatives often take advantage of discussions of privilege to pit different groups against each other, such as Asian-Americans against other non-white minorities. I think people on the Left need to find ways to work against these Model Minority arguments, because I have been noticing them coming up a lot in the media recently (like Amy Chua and the whole "Tiger Mom" theory).

No, because like I said, the "model minority" is a myth -- Asian-Americans aren't categorically better off than whites. It's a relatively small demographic which is highly polarized, which is why Asian-Americans can have the highest average take-home pay, while also having higher rates of poverty than white americans.

Thank you, this is what I was thinking of above. I rarely see this issue fleshed out in the media.

Only in that appalachian whites don't have the burden of structural racism to deal with. For one to be in a "privileged" group doesn't mean they have an easy life. I think you

True, but it is another type of discrimination based on a white subculture that is seen in a very negative light, even among other whites. Poor whites are still looked down upon publically with little blowback. Liberals are among the worst offenders when it comes to negatively stereotyping "rednecks" and "hillbillies." Plus, poor whites suffer from many of the same economic problems as poor non-whites, including bad schools, lack of job opportunities, etc.

I suppose the main privilege that poor whites may have is that they are probably not profiled as much by law enforcement compared to blacks and Hispanics.

I don't know if that's necessarily true, though, because black people are worse off than their white counterparts in every income bracket. I think race needs to be taken more seriously by socialists, but not to the exclusion of class (white poverty and white incarceration are both rendered sort of "invisible" by most people who treat these things as problems that only affect black people).

I think we must tackle racism and the problems faced by poor whites together. I am just not sure privilege theory is always the best way of going about it.

Now this, I think, is a good criticism, and one I don't have an answer for. I don't think the "oppression olympics" phenomenon is necessarily inherent in privilege theory but it's hella common in activist circles that use it.

The "oppression Olympics" seems like a natural outgrowth of privilege theory because the implication of the theory is that if you are from a group designated as privileged you are in some sense essentially opposed to "out groups" even if you support their struggles. Nobody wants to be tagged with the "privileged" label so people compete to gain recognition as a member of an "out group."

Yeah I don't think the name is very good. Ask someone if they think that black folks have it harder on average, and they might agree, but tell them they've got privilege over them and they'd take offense.

But either way, we can all agree that white, male workers, who certain have it rough, don't have to deal with sexism or racism like female and non-white workers have to deal with, right? How is saying that different, in substance, from privilege theory?

Privilege theory seems to suggest that white male workers benefit from institutional racism and sexism. This is the real troublesome issue because many white male works don't feel like they are benefitting from racism or sexism; they don't see it in their shrinking paychecks, slashed benefits, and outsourced jobs.

Unfortunately, many white males support racism and sexism because they see it as a way to increase their privilege and power over other groups, thus bettering their own position. I see this all the time among frustrated white men in person and online. It is why I think so many of them gravitate toward right-libertarianism and other reactionary ideologies.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 01:13

In the West, the more of these things you are (white, male, heterosexual, cis, non-working class, member of the majority religion, etc.), the more likely you are to think "privilege theory is a load of shit" because you've never experienced lack of privileges.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 01:17

This is why I am skeptical about the usefulness of privilege theory. It takes away from the real issue, which is class, capitalist vs. laborer.
Class is the main issue, but it's hardly the only issue. That kind of economism has led the Left (by that, I mean a Left historically dominated by white heterosexual cis men) to dismiss the struggles of women, queers, ethnic minorities, etc. in the name of the class struggle, when in fact those struggles need to be part of the broader class struggle.

Mr. Piccolo

16th April 2015, 02:11

Class is the main issue, but it's hardly the only issue. That kind of economism has led the Left (by that, I mean a Left historically dominated by white heterosexual cis men) to dismiss the struggles of women, queers, ethnic minorities, etc. in the name of the class struggle, when in fact those struggles need to be part of the broader class struggle.

True, but the Western Left has almost gone too far in the other direction and has downplayed class politics in order to emphasize identity politics, mostly because the latter is more acceptable in the mainstream. It is much easier to concentrate on identity politics because it is an area where the radical Left overlaps with parts of the liberal Left and identity politics, by itself, is not a direct threat to capitalism. You can easily be a social liberal and an economic capitalist. Indeed, this describes most progressive liberals and even some libertarians.

The radical Left has a problem with reaching out to working-class white men because of the perception that the Left is hostile to them and there is nothing they can do about it because they are forever stuck with the label of being "privileged."

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 03:13

True, but the Western Left has almost gone too far in the other direction and has downplayed class politics in order to emphasize identity politics
I haven't seen that, certainly not from the revolutionary Left. The liberal and progressive "Left" has always downplayed or ignored class politics.

It is much easier to concentrate on identity politicsThe revolutionary leftist idea that the liberation of queers, women, ethnic minorities, etc. can only occur as part of the broader class struggle isn't "identity politics", it's essential to the struggle.

The radical Left has a problem with reaching out to working-class white men because of the perception that the Left is hostile to them and there is nothing they can do about it because they are forever stuck with the label of being "privileged."And yet the western Left is still dominated by white men, so the idea that it's hostile to white men is absurd.

Mr. Piccolo

16th April 2015, 03:35

I haven't seen that, certainly not from the revolutionary Left. The liberal and progressive "Left" has always downplayed or ignored class politics.

I have seen this with some activists, sometimes in conjunction with Third Worldist opinions regarding native white workers and their lack of revolutionary potential.

The revolutionary leftist idea that the liberation of queers, women, ethnic minorities, etc. can only occur as part of the broader class struggle isn't "identity politics", it's essential to the struggle.

And yet the western Left is still dominated by white men, so the idea that it's hostile to white men is absurd.

And this is where the Left needs to differentiate itself from liberals, because liberals and radicals are often lumped together as "social justice warriors" by reactionaries.

I have noticed some misogyny among some left-wing activists, but this was in college where radical left-wing activism was dominated by one charismatic white guy! He was an awful misogynist, although he did a good job hiding his misogyny when trying to get activist females to sleep with him.

I am not sure if this is common though. If it is, I stand corrected.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 04:17

That's funny - because privilege theory originates from that very demographic (white, cis, non-working class etc)
Marxist theory didn't originate from workers, but it's still an important tool for class struggle.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 04:28

And this is where the Left needs to differentiate itself from liberals, because liberals and radicals are often lumped together as "social justice warriors" by reactionaries.
How we are different from liberals is we believe oppressed and marginalized groups can only liberate themselves through the broader class struggle. That's the point we need to press. What reactionaries think is irrelevant, though. They'll say stupid stuff regardless.

I have noticed some misogyny among some left-wing activists...I am not sure if this is common though. If it is, I stand corrected.
Misogyny often pops up in leftist circles, and it's been a recurring issue among some posters on RevLeft. Some of it is just because male comrades haven't ever had to think about it because it's not something they experience, which is kind of one of the points of privilege theory.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 04:45

Why don't you specify an actual argument against what I said? Instead of just of dismissing it because I'm too white too understand it or whatever
Uh, you're the one who dismissed privilege theory based on things unrelated to the actual theory, so maybe follow your own advice first.

Just because I am Caucasian and have a dick it doesn't mean that my life is all sunshine and rainbows you know?
Who ever said it was? Privilege theory isn't about saying people in more privileged groups have perfect lives. And why do you have to insert your genitals into a discussion?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 05:12

Don't patronise me. You're implying that I'm that just because I am man I should be grateful. The exact fact that I am a man and I can't fulfil what a man is supposed is to be is why my father why my he thinks there is something wrong with me. Please don't fuck me off any more because I can't take being treated like a piece of shit by everyone any longer
You're reading things into my words that simply aren't there. I'm not treating you like shit, nor am I patronizing you.

Sea

16th April 2015, 05:37

But race, class and gender in the United States are very clearly intertwined in very uncomfortable and ugly ways. I think saying "class is the real issue" to the exclusion of race and sex and gender is a profound mistake to make.It's unfortunate that people use "real" as a colloquial term for "causative" and, intentionally or otherwise, disregard the realness of other issues.
Privilege theory was built and refined with the tacit assumption that the racial, sexual oppression of old had become crystallized and unable to reproduce itself affirmatively- the culmination of centuries of oppression is all that remains, but we who "know better" can stop it.I'd like to see a supporter of privilege theory address Rafiq's point. Does privileged theory ignore the fact that class is what causes those other issues to be issues in the first place?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 06:01

Does privileged theory ignore the fact that class is what causes those other issues to be issues in the first place?
Depends on who's using it. Liberals? Probably. Revolutionaries? Probably not.

#FF0000

16th April 2015, 08:13

That's funny - because privilege theory originates from that very demographic (white, cis, non-working class etc)

That's interesting but can you explain to me why it's wrong

#FF0000

16th April 2015, 08:18

Just because I am Caucasian and have a dick it doesn't mean that my life is all sunshine and rainbows you know? Typing this up is making me get worked up so I'll just leave it there...

That's not what privilege theory says tho. Just says you don't gotta deal with racism and sexism like nonwhite people and women do -- which is a fact you already acknowledge.

I guess that's really what I'm wondering here -- Marxists attack "privilege theory" a lot but I don't understand what separates privilege theory from the simple observation that certain people have extra shit to deal with on top of whatever comes with being working class.

Mr. Piccolo

16th April 2015, 09:34

That's not what privilege theory says tho. Just says you don't gotta deal with racism and sexism like nonwhite people and women do -- which is a fact you already acknowledge.

I guess that's really what I'm wondering here -- Marxists attack "privilege theory" a lot but I don't understand what separates privilege theory from the simple observation that certain people have extra shit to deal with on top of whatever comes with being working class.

So why must white men "check their privilege" at all, as if it were some sort of religious penance? Isn't it enough to recognize that racism and sexism continue to exist and to fight against such things?

Privilege theory seems to assign collective guilt with no hope of absolution to white heterosexual men, even if they are poor workers with no connection to the capitalist class outside of their need to sell their own labor power to survive.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 10:04

Privilege theory seems to assign collective guilt with no hope of absolution to white heterosexual men, even if they are poor workers with no connection to the capitalist class outside of their need to sell their own labor power to survive.
It's not about guilt or absolution. It's about recognizing that there are other forms of privilege co-existing with class privilege. In a revolutionary context, it means there are other forms of struggle within the broader class struggle. Women's liberation or queer liberation, for example, can only happen as a result of successful working class liberation.

Whining about how picked on straight white men are? Really, dude?

Mr. Piccolo

16th April 2015, 10:38

It's not about guilt or absolution. It's about recognizing that there are other forms of privilege co-existing with class privilege. In a revolutionary context, it means there are other forms of struggle within the broader class struggle. Women's liberation or queer liberation, for example, can only happen as a result of successful working class liberation.

Whining about how picked on straight white men are? Really, dude?

Perhaps in theory, but there is the implication that white men are benefiting from institutional racism and sexism, and that they are therefore tied to the capitalist establishment. Granted, many white, straight, male workers fall right into this trap and do identify with the establishment, perhaps in the naïve hope of salvaging some semblance of privilege over non-whites, women, gays, and others. They will most likely fail, though, because capitalism, in the First World at least, is moving away from institutional racism and sexism, albeit slowly.

Modern capitalism has been steadily moving away from racism and sexism as legitimizing ideologies. Today, the legitimizing ideology is meritocratic, which explains why anti-discrimination legislation and movements are given capitalism support (note that I am not arguing against anti-discrimination legislation, I am just pointing out how they are utilized to legitimize capitalism through the promotion of the meritocratic ideology).

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 10:58

Perhaps in theory, but there is the implication that white men are benefiting from institutional racism and sexism, and that they are therefore tied to the capitalist establishment.
Except white men do benefit from racism and sexism, whether they want to or not. More to the point, most white men have no clue how privileged they are because they don't experience life in a sexist society the way women do or life in a racist society the way people of color do. What they can do, however, is recognize their privilege, learn from it, and then fight against the root causes of it.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

16th April 2015, 11:52

This line from Wikipedia gets to the core of privilege theory: "Privilege theory argues that each individual is embedded in a matrix of categories and contexts, and will be in some ways privileged and other ways disadvantaged, with privileged attributes lessening disadvantage and membership in a disadvantaged group lessening the benefits of privilege."

So the idea that it doesn't take into account that straight white men can be disadvantaged as workers is a baseless accusation.

Rafiq

16th April 2015, 19:03

Does privileged theory ignore the fact that class is what causes those other issues to be issues in the first place?

Not only does it do this, it attempts to designate class too as something that is solely a matter of "privilege" that we ought to keep in check. Hence, with nonsense like "classism" entering political correct methedology. Privilege theory essentially posits that social antagonisms can be swept away through our postmodern, liberal or pseudo-leftist political framework, it assumes history has come to an end and that the task is now to isolate and combat prejudices whose affirmative, reproducing existence is solely owed to the their "enduring" legacy - it attributes things like racism, and sexism, to structures whose conditions of inception no longer exist, but whose effects we are still experiencing through formations of cultural privilege that had consequentially formed because of them.

#FF0000

16th April 2015, 19:24

Mr. Piccolo

18th April 2015, 07:03

Except white men do benefit from racism and sexism, whether they want to or not. More to the point, most white men have no clue how privileged they are because they don't experience life in a sexist society the way women do or life in a racist society the way people of color do. What they can do, however, is recognize their privilege, learn from it, and then fight against the root causes of it.

I have been thinking about this issue for days now and I think you are right. I went out with my friends tonight and I could see how privileged my white, male friends were. They don't understand that some people, like women with children, cannot easily just "go back to school" to get better jobs. They didn't understand that my Chinese friend can't live in one city for a long time because his employers demand that he, like other guest workers, relocate at a moments notice.

It actually is shocking how blind people can be to how others have to live.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th April 2015, 11:31

I guess that's really what I'm wondering here -- Marxists attack "privilege theory" a lot but I don't understand what separates privilege theory from the simple observation that certain people have extra shit to deal with on top of whatever comes with being working class.

Except that's not the point of privilege theory, even in the completely ahistorical way in which most people on RL use the term. The point is to portray not having "extra shit to deal with" as some kind of sinister privilege that one should ritually apologise for - and which magically invalidates any argument you make, so step aside and let the self-appointed representatives of the PoC (sure, all brown people are basically the same, right?) etc. speak.

Also, why do people focus on white heterosexual men? A recent NUS resolution condemned gay men for their privilege and ordered them to stop "appropriating" the mannerisms of black women. This is par for the course with privilege politicking; sooner or later the hierarchy has to be drawn; does X, who claims to be, or is speaking for group A, have more privilege points than Y, who claims to be, or is speaking for group B?

Meanwhile in the real world this nonsense is pretty much confined to student politics and some dark corners of the Internet. It's irrelevant outside this narrow and (my fucking-someone-who-is-not-related-to-me privilege is probably showing) fairly incestuous circle, although I'm sure that in ten years' time, we'll have members of the bourgeoisie who are also neutrois trans-Korean trans-dragons, why are the privileged leftists (and remember, kids, working is also a privilege!) being so mean to them?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th April 2015, 11:57

I have been thinking about this issue for days now and I think you are right. I went out with my friends tonight and I could see how privileged my white, male friends were.
I'm glad you've been thinking about it. Sometimes it's just a matter of looking at it from a different perspective. As a trans woman, I got to experience it from both sides, from being perceived as a man before transition to being perceived as a woman after.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th April 2015, 12:08

Also, why do people focus on white heterosexual men?
Perhaps because in a society where white heterosexual men are dominant, they tend to have the most social privilege?

A recent NUS resolution condemned gay men for their privilege and ordered them to stop "appropriating" the mannerisms of black women.
Um, what?

Meanwhile in the real world this nonsense is pretty much confined to student politics and some dark corners of the Internet.
By that logic, revolutionary leftist politics are also pretty much nonsense, because they're confined to small circles in "the real world" for most of us.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th April 2015, 12:29

Perhaps because in a society where white heterosexual men are dominant, they tend to have the most social privilege?

That's not the point. What is being implied is that privilege theory with its ridiculous moral harangues, ritual denunciations etc. only targets white heterosexual men (and for that matter, these do not have the most social power, as a group - they are divided by class, and a bourgeois gay black trans-woman has more social power than any working-class white heterosexual cis-man). And this is simply not the case.

Um, what?

Yes, that was my response as well, when I heard about this nonsense from comrades in the UK. The motion was #512 (http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nusdigital/document/documents/13965/15ff8316e168ed13758f1ecdc1057316/CD6_motions_amendments_v3_final.pdf). Also notice the resolution deploring cross-dressing.

By that logic, revolutionary leftist politics are also pretty much nonsense, because they're confined to small circles in "the real world" for most of us.

I said privilege politicking is nonsense, and is irrelevant. What passes for "revolutionary leftist politics" is also largely nonsense, and is irrelevant, that is true. Nonetheless it has far more of an actual presence than "privilege theory".

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th April 2015, 13:04

That's not the point. What is being implied is that privilege theory with its ridiculous moral harangues, ritual denunciations etc. only targets white heterosexual men
Only? Not from what I've seen. Largely? Certainly, and for the reasons I pointed out. I also think the prevalence of harangues and denunciations is overstated as well.

(and for that matter, these do not have the most social power, as a group - they are divided by class
I frequently see class accounted for by privilege theory, especially when it's being applied by revolutionaries.

Yes, that was my response as well, when I heard about this nonsense from comrades in the UK. The motion was #512 (http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nusdigital/document/documents/13965/15ff8316e168ed13758f1ecdc1057316/CD6_motions_amendments_v3_final.pdf).
Well, after reading the motion, I'm less critical of it. If there are gay white men calling themselves "black women" or whatever, they should shut the fuck up.

Also notice the resolution deploring cross-dressing.
But only as "fancy dress". Are there a lot of fancy dress cross-dressing parties over there that are problematic?

I said privilege politicking is nonsense, and is irrelevant. What passes for "revolutionary leftist politics" is also largely nonsense, and is irrelevant, that is true. Nonetheless it has far more of an actual presence than "privilege theory".
Fair enough.

Sharia Lawn

18th April 2015, 13:45

Only? Not from what I've seen. Largely? Certainly, and for the reasons I pointed out. I also think the prevalence of harangues and denunciations is overstated as well. You couldn't miss the point anymore if you deliberately tried. Person A is a black lesbian capitalist. Person B is an impoverished straight working-class white man. Guess which one the privilege "theorist" would claim is more privileged. Then guess which one an actual revolutionary would say is driven by social positioning in daily experience to fight for the creation of a socialist society. Know why this is? Because privilege theory is postmodern liberal bullshit that pretends all forms of oppression and exploitation are irreducibly unique and analytically equal, with none enjoying explanatory or causal primacy. It's really not even a theory so much as it is an observation about who is oppressed and who supposedly isn't. The crowd on this forum is so immersed in this trendy pseudoleft hipsterism that most aren't even aware of the implications of their tacit embrace of privilege theory.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th April 2015, 13:59

You couldn't miss the point anymore if you deliberately tried. Person A is a black lesbian capitalist. Person B is an impoverished straight working-class white man. Guess which one the privilege "theorist" would claim is more privileged.
As a white working class woman, I still have a smaller chance of a police encounter leading to my death than a black man does, even a black man from a different class.

Reducing everything absolutely to class is mindless economism, and it usually leads to leftists who think other oppressions aren't of any concern (and, gee, it's never a coincidence when those leftists tend to be straight cis white men).

Women's liberation, black liberation, queer liberation, etc., can only succeed as part of the broader class struggle, but that doesn't mean class is the only meaningful oppression, nor that some of the concepts of privilege, intersectionality, etc., aren't useful in discussing that.

Sharia Lawn

18th April 2015, 14:09

As a white working class woman, I still have a smaller chance of a police encounter leading to my death than a black man does, even a black man from a different class.
Anybody in an impoverished area is a hell of a lot more likely to encounter the police on a daily basis than somebody in a wealthy area. That's simply a fact. Now it's also quite true that a wealthy black man in an upscale area is more likely to encounter "suspicion" from the police than a wealthy white man in that area. The same holds true for a poor black man being more likely to be the victim of police abuse than a poor white man. The cross-class comparison is where your liberal methodology is revealed: whatever association police might subjectively make and act upon (black = criminal = poor) doesn't alter one iota the fact that the primary role of the police, the essential purpose of the state, and the reason the state developed, is to protect private property and serve the ruling class. It's not to serve white people, as it seems to be in your pseudoleft "all oppressions are casually equal" model of the world. Racism is a product, historically, of how class relations and the state developed. And it can be easily seen in the fact that, yes, a rich black man is far more likely to enjoy the luxury of privacy and protection from constant police surveillance than a poor white man. For the former, oppression tends to be episodic, while for the latter it hangs in the background and conditions practically every aspect of daily life both inside and outside the home, from the groceries he can buy, to the health care he can't afford, to the strain on his intimate relationships resulting from unpaid bills.
Reducing everything absolutely to class is mindless economism, and it usually leads to leftists who think other oppressions aren't of any concern (and, gee, it's never a coincidence when those leftists tend to be straight cis white men).

Women's liberation, black liberation, queer liberation, etc., can only succeed as part of the broader class struggle, but that doesn't mean class is the only meaningful oppression, nor that some of the concepts of privilege, intersectionality, etc., aren't useful in discussing that.And here, predictably, the straw starts flying. Nobody here is reducing everything to class by saying that class underpins racial and sexual oppression, anymore than a person who points out that oxygen underpins human life is reducing human life to oxygen.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th April 2015, 14:19

The cross-class comparison is where your liberal methodology is revealed: whatever association police might subjectively make and act upon (black = criminal = poor) doesn't alter one iota the fact that the primary role of the police, the essential purpose of the state, and the reason the state developed, is to protect private property and serve the ruling class.
I never stated otherwise about the role of police. You talk about strawmen, then you put so many words in my mouth that I can't count them.

But the fact still remains, white people in general do have some privileges over black people in general, or men in general over women in general, etc., regardless of class.

s it seems to be in your pseudoleft "all oppressions are casually equal" model of the world.
Which isn't my model of the world at all. I've said more than once that class oppression is the main oppression, just not the only meaningful one. You have so much loathing for the idea of privilege that you're intellectually dishonest.

Sharia Lawn

18th April 2015, 14:24

I never stated otherwise about the role of police. You talk about strawmen, then you put so many words in my mouth that I can't count them.
Okay, then you don't disagree with my earlier point about the black lesbian capitalist and the straight white working-class man. I'm glad to see that your apparent disagreement in your response must have been the result of confusion by you as to what I was arguing.
But the fact still remains, white people in general do have some privileges over black people in general, or men in general over women in general, etc., regardless of class.
Which nobody here disputes and is not specific, at all, to privilege theory.
Which isn't my model of the world at all. I've said more than once that class oppression is the main oppression, just not the only meaningful one. You have so much loathing for the idea of privilege that you're intellectually dishonest.Now you're back to ostensibly defending privilege theory while claiming that you agree with every point I've made in opposition to it, then on top of it you throw in a bogus accusation that I fail to recognize that being white or being a man carries with it certain limited privileges.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th April 2015, 14:38

Now you're back to defending privilege theory while claiming that you agree with every point I've made in opposition to it
I agree with privilege theory and intersectionality when they're used to complement class analysis, because they do add value to understanding different forms of oppression and marginalization. I will also say that when they're used in the circles I'm usually in, they don't bear a strong resemblance to the crude reductions of them put forward by some leftists. So maybe we're just arguing from two different experiences of how they're used.

Sharia Lawn

18th April 2015, 14:41

I agree with privilege theory and intersectionality when they're used to complement class analysis, because they do add value to understanding different forms of oppression and marginalization. I will also say that when they're used in the circles I'm usually in, they don't bear a strong resemblance to the crude reductions of them put forward by some leftists. So maybe we're just arguing from two different experiences of how they're used.

If you think privilege theory is the uncontroversial (at least among the left) observation that whites, straights, men, etc., enjoy certain privileges in abstraction from class, then you honestly don't understand what privilege theory is and need to learn more before making some of the comments you have in this thread. It's not a matter of different understandings of privilege theory we have because of our different experiences. It's a matter of privilege theory having a definite meaning that you are apparently unaware of.

Cliff Paul

18th April 2015, 14:45

I agree with privilege theory and intersectionality when they're used to complement class analysis, because they do add value to understanding different forms of oppression and marginalization.

What is the need for 'privilege theory'? Unless you follow the crude, vulgar economicism of Althusserian Marxism, there's no reason why traditional Marxism can't account for gender/social/racial privileges.

Counterculturalist

18th April 2015, 19:32

Not only does it do this, it attempts to designate class too as something that is solely a matter of "privilege" that we ought to keep in check. Hence, with nonsense like "classism" entering political correct methedology. Privilege theory essentially posits that social antagonisms can be swept away through our postmodern, liberal or pseudo-leftist political framework, it assumes history has come to an end and that the task is now to isolate and combat prejudices whose affirmative, reproducing existence is solely owed to the their "enduring" legacy - it attributes things like racism, and sexism, to structures whose conditions of inception no longer exist, but whose effects we are still experiencing through formations of cultural privilege that had consequentially formed because of them.

Interesting. I have generally neither propounded privilege theory, nor have I seen it as something to be fought against. However, I always hated the trend of identity politics existing in a vacuum divorced from any economic analysis, reducing racism and sexism to failings on the part of individuals. Like if we could just stop and punish those assholes who choose to be racist or sexist, the world would be free of prejudice.

I like how you identify the concept of classism as something that perpetuates class division. I had never thought of that way, but you're right. While I did notice lots of prejudice against lower-income and blue-collar people while in grad school, to ascribe this to "classism" implies that class divisions are legitimate, and we ought to be "tolerant" of those less fortunate, instead of smashing the class system altogether.

Mr. Piccolo

18th April 2015, 20:05

Interesting. I have generally neither propounded privilege theory, nor have I seen it as something to be fought against. However, I always hated the trend of identity politics existing in a vacuum divorced from any economic analysis, reducing racism and sexism to failings on the part of individuals. Like if we could just stop and punish those assholes who choose to be racist or sexist, the world would be free of prejudice.

I like how you identify the concept of classism as something that perpetuates class division. I had never thought of that way, but you're right. While I did notice lots of prejudice against lower-income and blue-collar people while in grad school, to ascribe this to "classism" implies that class divisions are legitimate, and we ought to be "tolerant" of those less fortunate, instead of smashing the class system altogether.

What is termed "classism" is a type of labor aristocrat snobbishness that is developed through the process of capitalist socialization at school and work. It does perpetuate divisions among workers because that is one of the purposes of education in capitalism.

Like other forms of privilege, I think you can either interpret it in a liberal manner (dividing workers into classes based on income or type of work and arguing for tolerance as a way to transcend these differences) or in a revolutionary manner (seeing the problem as one of capitalist socialization and labor aristocracy to be destroyed once the system is overturned).

Црвена

18th April 2015, 22:04

What is the need for 'privilege theory'? Unless you follow the crude, vulgar economicism of Althusserian Marxism, there's no reason why traditional Marxism can't account for gender/social/racial privileges.

Exactly.

I think privilege theory has the same problem as all liberal theories of this nature: it views "privilege" as existing in a vacuum. As others have mentioned it doesn't account for class enough (of course it doesn't, because it's liberal) and doesn't give a picture of the actual social relations behind the privilege of some groups, or at least not as full a picture as it should.

Mr. Piccolo

18th April 2015, 22:32

Exactly.

I think privilege theory has the same problem as all liberal theories of this nature: it views "privilege" as existing in a vacuum. As others have mentioned it doesn't account for class enough (of course it doesn't, because it's liberal) and doesn't give a picture of the actual social relations behind the privilege of some groups, or at least not as full a picture as it should.

Non-economic forms of privilege exist within and are interwoven into capitalist society. However, I understand your point also, because wealth and class position are the most powerful and pervasive forms of privilege.

Црвена

18th April 2015, 22:37

Non-economic forms of privilege exist within and are interwoven into capitalist society. However, I understand your point also, because wealth and class position are the most powerful and pervasive forms of privilege.

Yes - they're interwoven into capitalist society, and that is precisely what privilege theorists don't take into account.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

19th April 2015, 00:32

It's a matter of privilege theory having a definite meaning that you are apparently unaware of.
It also has several different interpretations that you are apparently unaware of. It's like some of the attacks on feminism I've seen on RevLeft over the years, where posters seemed to think being anti-feminist was the correct revolutionary position because they were only aware of feminism as applied by bourgeois liberalism.

Rafiq

19th April 2015, 01:23

It also has several different interpretations that you are apparently unaware of. It's like some of the attacks on feminism I've seen on RevLeft over the years, where posters seemed to think being anti-feminist was the correct revolutionary position because they were only aware of feminism as applied by bourgeois liberalism.

The difference is that privilege theory is an entirely different approach to a problem, with the difference solely being it's bourgeois character. Now the recognition of this problem (the existence of oppression on sexual, or national lines) is shared by liberals and radicals alike - the equivalence would be claiming some petite bourgeois radicals would oppose the opposition to these problems because they're shared by liberals.

Bourgeois feminism, for example, is also entirely distinct - but it encapsulates a real problem. That's why we who oppose privilege theory don't concur with its reactionary opponents in our criticism of it. I mean, read what I had said: is there ANYTHING here in common with your standard reactionary opposition to privilege theory? There can be no revolutionary appropriation of privilege theory, but there can be a revolutionary approach to the very real problems which privilege theorists attempt to obscufate.

LuÃs Henrique

19th April 2015, 02:46

Sorry for the picture-only post, but sometimes an image is actually worth thousands of words.

https://richardhosein.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/white-privilege.png

Luís Henrique

Rafiq

19th April 2015, 04:23

Sorry for the picture-only post, but sometimes an image is actually worth thousands of words.

Luís Henrique

Yes, but how should this be understood? In terms of mere privilege, or active, perpetual oppression? Privilege simply denotes a relationship of "having more" - one can, however, be privileged without having to bother or care with those who are not - oppression designates a relationship of power.

blake 3:17

25th April 2015, 03:00

Danielle, you're making a lot of very good points here, and ones I'd largely agree with.

My political education and practice has been one very much influenced by socialist feminism, one that recognized multiple forms of oppression, but was also went quite quickly between the practical and the theoretical.

Where I do I find 'privilege' as a relatively poor form of theory and praxis is when it does become strangely reified in common consciousness -- I've been involved in a number of free speech debates and it is a very frustrating to hear the common rfrain that it is only privileged people who want free speech. An easy rebuttal to that are any number of prisoners seeking freedom of expression. The general erasure of of class consciousness, universalist demands for certain freedoms, and historical amnesia leaves me with some blank faces. Who's this Mumia? Why support this Fahmy? Hell he just got a billionaire supporting him.

I've also been part of a lot of Left things that have gotten so bogged down in trying to establish an internal equality that they have done nothing. In a number of cases it's been due to people who were out and out abusive, others that pandered to them and were complicit to their shitty behaviour, and a bunch of others who got caught up in weird halls of mirror stuff for not calling bullshit when it was bullshit.

Anyways, not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to gt my head around how this stuff is playing out in the real world. Inequality keeps growing (often in unexpected directions) and maintaining a basic sense of solidarity, dignity and humour in all of it seems all we have.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

25th April 2015, 12:24

Yes, but how should this be understood? In terms of mere privilege, or active, perpetual oppression? Privilege simply denotes a relationship of "having more" - one can, however, be privileged without having to bother or care with those who are not - oppression designates a relationship of power.

Etymologically, privilege is from privus - meaning special - and lex - meaning law. It seems to me, therefore, that privilege is a word particularly well suited to describing the special relationships that are characterized by a privileged relationship to state power. I think there's significant evidence that whiteness, maleness, etc. are to some degree actually defined by the special legal status they confer (albeit, often at this juncture, in a negative sense - eg the lack of laws regulating men's reproductive activity).

Actually, I think part of the problem with some liberal identity politics is that this notion of privilege disappears: Identity ceases to be a fluid product of particular material relationships, and instead is treated in ways that are essentialist; that imagine identity as innate rather than as a product of laws, etc.

bricolage

27th April 2015, 01:59

Quail

27th April 2015, 22:55

haven't been paying attention to this thread so I don't know if this has been discussed but I just wanted to go back to some of the stuff about "class oppression" here. Isn't it that class is a point of exploitation not of oppression? this has always seemed weakness to commonly held understandings of privilege theory; the reduction of class analysis to "classism".

Must admit I've only been paying enough attention to this thread to moderate it, so I apologise if I'm just repeating stuff that's already been said.

I think the idea of privilege is useful, but only if it's used alongside a class analysis. The idea of "classism" as something which is analogous to racism or sexism would imply that class society is okay, as long we don't discriminate based on class... which is not even remotely a communist position. But I do think it's helpful to see people not only as working class people, but as people with a variety of intersecting identities, some of which marginalise them further, some of which may make their lives easier. Taking into account these identities and how they affect us means that we can build a movement which doesn't exclude the most marginalised groups of people (as historically many social movements have).

The Garbage Disposal Unit

28th April 2015, 17:32

I'd go a step further and say that it's impossible to understand class absent patriarchy, white supremacy, and colonialism which, historically, have been the bedrock of real class constitution. It's not a coincidence that the majority of the "hard core of the proletariat" (to borrow some Maoist phraseology) - the people actually labouring in fields and factories with nothing to lose but their chains - are women in/from the so-called "third world".

To talk about exploitation while neglecting the real historical forces that have defined who is exploited and how is bound to miss the point.

Rafiq

28th April 2015, 21:07

It's not a coincidence that the majority of the "hard core of the proletariat" (to borrow some Maoist phraseology) - the people actually labouring in fields and factories with nothing to lose but their chains - are women in/from the so-called "third world".

The problem here is that what is defined as the "hard core of the proletariat" has no definite scientific (yes, an obnoxious word) groundings - or to be more precise, is not grounded in definite consistent theoretical qualifications. We might all agree that a field laborer lives in conditions infinitely worse than even a minimum wage worker in the United States, but if the qualifications for class, or any of their varying degrees are defined in moral terms, they become useless. It is therefore useful to recognize that the varying degrees of apparent exploitation ought to be understood in relation to the power of labor in relation to capital in the respective countries - in third world countries, the worker's movement does not have the history of the first world movement and all of its victories. What this establishes is not only definite, scientific qualifications for understanding them, but approaches the so-called "third world" as a struggle just as important as that in our own countries - it establishes a universality where we aren't even above them to look down and pity them.

This is really the crux of the problem of privilege theory - when I say that it ignores the relationship of oppression, I mean something very simple: What definite theoretical qualifications prevent us from acknowledging, for example, thin privilege? Non-handy capped privilege? Let's say there's a birth defect with some kind of terrible deformity that leads one to be discriminated against in the workplace, unable to find a job and unable to be treated decently - why doesn't this factor into privilege theory either? Well - it actually does in the minds of most consistent privilege theorists, except that the grand majority of them are not radicals by any means. If the designation has its basis in law, then there can really be no talk of "cis-privilege" or "straight-privilege" because everything pertaining to this, legally, directly relates to laws regulating the female sex. As well as that, to talk of whiteness as a legal category becomes obsolete too, because "formally" there are no laws which explicitly deal with race as such, besides of course "preventing" discrimination against it.

The underlying problem is very simple: Privilege theory is incapable of differentiating oppression unique, or relative to our existing epoch, and what may very well be a timeless problem (i.e. Thin privilege, being handicapped and so on) of life. That is because capitalism, and the eternal condition of man is itself one and the same in the mind of the first privilege theorists.

LuÃs Henrique

29th April 2015, 00:27

Yes, but how should this be understood? In terms of mere privilege, or active, perpetual oppression? Privilege simply denotes a relationship of "having more" - one can, however, be privileged without having to bother or care with those who are not - oppression designates a relationship of power.

It isn't a simple relationship of power - the White man teaching his kid about reproduction isn't oppressing the Black man who teaches his kid about racial violence against Blacks. But the oppression that hurts both is of very different degrees, and even of a different nature. If the White guy does not realise that, goes unaware of how this difference stakes things against Black, takes that difference for granted, and is blind to this assimetry, then it is likely that he will side with the oppression of Blacks, even if only in a passive, non-intentional way.

The relationship, consequently, is triangular.

Luís Henrique

Rafiq

29th April 2015, 00:55

The Garbage Disposal Unit

29th April 2015, 20:45

Power between capital and people - not simply individuals. That is my point.

And it is all very well that awareness of racism is good. But what does this have to do with "privilege"? Very little. They have the privilege of not having to confront the oppression directly, but why is this important politically?

It gives us some pretty important answers about the hegemony of shitty social-democratic liberalism on the white left in North America . . .

Rafiq

29th April 2015, 20:53

mushroompizza

30th April 2015, 02:14

It all depends on what you mean by "privilege", then I can give you my opinion.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

30th April 2015, 16:02

All this tells is that today's "left" has been unable to properly approximate itself toward the possible proletarian interests of the 21st century. Most intellectuals, Marxist or anarchist, were "privileged" or were from privileged backgrounds. The difference is that they were able to have a social basis: this had nothing to do with relating to the practical experiences of the "under-privileged" personally but embodying their social existence intellectually in a way which is proper. There should never be this emphasis on personal background: leftists today can be petite bourgeois ideologically and come from the working class, and so on.

See, this reflects the limits of a liberal notion of privilege, which concerns itself purely with individuals. The point of course is the collective relations shaped by juridico-political power, and not whether or not a given individual can check off whatever boxes.
So, when we refer to privilege we need to think, for example, of instances like the Rand Formula in Canada, which brought an entire strata of primarily white primarily male workers into a privileged relationship to the state and capital. It's not about the racism or misogyny of individual white men (though it certainly creates the conditions for it, and expresses itself through that) but about the conditions of white men as a whole. One can extrapolate from this, looking at specific legislation and medicalization of various sexual practices, body types, and so on.

John Nada

30th April 2015, 21:54

There is other forms of oppression besides class, and there's other forms of privilege besides classes directly.

The classes are not static. In the US, white people are more likely to move up to or stay the petite-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy than non-white people. In the US, POC(including Asians, to go back to the op's post) are more likely to fall down from the petite-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy(contrary to third-worldist, I think is possible) into the proletariat. White workers may see their friends and family get raises, promotions, loans, diplomas, houses, cars, stock and even move up in classes, and when there more likely to stay. This can have a bourgeoisifing effect on their class consciousness.

POC may see their friends and family get fired, foreclosed, repossessed cars, arrested, passed up for promotions and generally get paid less. LGBTQ people make less than straight people and experience higher levels of poverty, especially trans-women. Women make 77% as much money as men for the same work. The class dynamic is racialized and sexualized, with workers closer to the ideal(white-abled-straight-cis-man) as a buffer.

And something that I think don't gets pointed out often enough, this superexploitation makes the bourgeoisie money, so it is in the class interest of the bourgeoisie to fan the flames of hate. This is where the liberal privilege theory, as I understand it, falls short. It seemingly only goes far enough just for working on a job with people, where being a completely bigoted asshole is not profitable. The privileged have the oppressed in chains, but white-abled-straight-cis-male proletarians are part of this clusterfuck of chains. Smash the chains that bind us and free ourselves.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st May 2015, 15:47

Rafiq

1st May 2015, 23:59

It's not about the racism or misogyny of individual white men (though it certainly creates the conditions for it, and expresses itself through that) but about the conditions of white men as a whole. One can extrapolate from this, looking at specific legislation and medicalization of various sexual practices, body types, and so on.

The conditions of white men, or the condition of the white man, that is to say, the universal-ideological image of the white men which, incidentally, people with white skin conform to. That is the underlying point - privilege theory cannot reconcile itself with not only the reality that it does not concern individuals as such (And this itself stems into actually racist territory - as though there is synchronicity between the power of the white man, and, say, the biological constitution of white men), but that it doesn't concern any individuals as such.

The point is that even though there is 'privilege' here, to understand racial oppression in terms of privilege places primacy upon what can only ever be secondary. It does not address the root of the problem - why is the machinery of the capitalist state, from laws and so on, expressed in this way? What any good Marxist should know of laws is simple: the legislation of the bourgeois state is just as much malleable to social relationships to production as the heresay of common person, mass media and cultural cliches.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

3rd May 2015, 16:57

Yes, from what I understand class is exploited, whereas social groups such as people of colour, gays etc. are oppressed.

Linguistically this is quite neat, too - as Marxists we can describe the ruling class as exploiting their position of social power vis a vis the working class to oppress socially marginalised groups. The 'working class black woman', for example: the practical impact of her oppression as a black women is magnified by the fact she is exploited as a poor person.

I think what's missing here is the historical and particular nature of the overlap. People of colour and women constitute a disproportionate majority of the exploited (and the most exploited). Homophobia, I think, makes sense in a context of understanding capitalist regulation of gender and therefore gendered labour. Etc. So there is a distinction to be drawn when using "exploited" in the specific Marxist sense, but it's wildly ahistorical to be like, "Oh, and this other thing - oppression," when in fact oppression is actually really central to class constitution.

So, like, there's a reason for the existence of the massive numbers of working class black women - the categories aren't incidental. The working class has been fundamentally molded by the colonial projects which characterize the real material history of capitalism.

The conditions of white men, or the condition of the white man, that is to say, the universal-ideological image of the white men which, incidentally, people with white skin conform to. That is the underlying point - privilege theory cannot reconcile itself with not only the reality that it does not concern individuals as such (And this itself stems into actually racist territory - as though there is synchronicity between the power of the white man, and, say, the biological constitution of white men), but that it doesn't concern any individuals as such.

It's not biological - it's historical. The white man doesn't precede the constitution of white man as subject position within capitalism. Like, "whiteness" wasn't a thing until a few hundred years ago. Neither does "man" conform to notions of "man" that precede our current social forms (and "scientific" discourses of sex/sexuality). In this way it does concern individuals precisely as such - the constitution of "the white man" (to keep running with the example) does define all white men. It's just that, as per my previous post, it's not static and it has to be understood in terms of the "big picture" of that historical (and ongoing) constitution by force of law, etc.

The point is that even though there is 'privilege' here, to understand racial oppression in terms of privilege places primacy upon what can only ever be secondary. It does not address the root of the problem - why is the machinery of the capitalist state, from laws and so on, expressed in this way? What any good Marxist should know of laws is simple: the legislation of the bourgeois state is just as much malleable to social relationships to production as the heresay of common person, mass media and cultural cliches.

I feel like this still misses something crucial - I think though that calling privilege "secondary" suggests that its real historical role in class constitution is somehow . . . well, secondary to what? Secondary to an abstract notion of the working class that exists absent the real history of its racialized and gendered constitution?

Rafiq

4th May 2015, 04:40

I feel like this still misses something crucial - I think though that calling privilege "secondary" suggests that its real historical role in class constitution is somehow . . . well, secondary to what? Secondary to an abstract notion of the working class that exists absent the real history of its racialized and gendered constitution?

What brought Europeans and non-Europeans into association was not some kind of formal decision by Europeans to expand Europe, which merely translated into making laws in favor of old white men and so on, what brought them into association was precisely a relationship of oppression - slavery, colonization and so on. The point being that it simply isn't true that the proletariat was "molded by colonial projects" in the context that your'e saying: initially, the proletariat of the colonized countries completely arose incidentally - the proletariat in its first embryonic form preceded colonization. But never mind that - I did not even claim that national, or sexual oppression is secondary - I claimed that privilege is a secondary consequence of real relationships of oppression, grounded not in laws (which can be molded and changed) but in real relationships to production. Without a revolutionary movement, if the state were to collapse tomorrow and all the official laws with it - it is likely that these same "laws" will spontaneously arise again, if they are not content being enforced on a local level. That is because unlike laws, our social relationships to production cannot be molded at will.

The proletariat cannot be understood on national terms, whether designating oppression or otherwise. There is no reason to suggest women are more predisposed to being workers, because for example bourgeois women have no spontaneous predisposition to become workers. The reality of Communist politics is that the minute they are conceived, the crystallized racial categories can only ever become obsolete - because they are a symptom, politically of class oppression. Why else would they exist?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th May 2015, 11:26

So, like, there's a reason for the existence of the massive numbers of working class black women - the categories aren't incidental. The working class has been fundamentally molded by the colonial projects which characterize the real material history of capitalism.

I heard something recently from somebody (she was a black woman), who said that when she wakes up in the morning and looks in the mirror she sees a woman and a black person, whereas when a white man wakes up in the morning he just sees a human being, therefore the idea that people can say they are 'post-racial' or 'colour blind' doesn't wash with her. So you're right - there is a duality of oppression that has at its root cause exploitation on a class basis - being a worker amplifies significantly the extent of the sexism/racism faced by oppressed groups.