White Privelege is nonsense

[Raul Castro]

I made this post when I was dumb and was not thinking clearly ignore the title above

[Ale Brider]

And here we are, after all the Russophile and nationalist stuff now we have a thread that is basically full-blown racist stuff. I mean I could refute your point but I generally don't argue with alt-right people.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There is no such thing as white privelege, all the police attacks are based on poverty not race, the police is attacking working class people not just blacks. There are no laws against blacks preventing somebody a black person from doing something so there is no white privelege

Yet, poverty is racialized, so . . .

[Raul Castro]

liberal, lol definition of racism: The belief that one race is superior to another. Where in my sentence did I say anything racist?

- - - Updated - - -

Poverty is not racialized, it is carried down through ancestry which is a problem with capitalism but nothing to so with race, white people make u the majority of america's poor you black people are just disporportionatley poor

[Ale Brider]

No, racism is just not that...? Not at all? I don't really get where you are going and you just make yourself look bad. I mean, really. Saying white privilege is not real is pretty much racist in the sense that it neglects racial aspects of capitalism and the systemic oppression of people of color that still exists in the US. You said that there are no discriminatory laws anymore, but social stuctures don't change this easy, and indirectly they are still deeply racist towards non-whites.

I assume you are white? Because if you are, you just managed to illustrate how white privilege (in this case, not having to deal with racism) exists. Wow.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There is no such thing as white privelege, all the police attacks are based on poverty not race, the police is attacking working class people not just blacks. There are no laws against blacks preventing somebody a black person from doing something so there is no white privelege

I like how this guy decides to challenge white privilege by denigrating people with intellectual disabilities as if he doesn't realize that showing his privilege over "retarded" people implicitly exposes the possibility of there being such a thing as white privilege.

Also ironic since the Castros made it a point to challenge racialized privilege in their country, and claimed that their anti-racist efforts were one of the achievements of the regime.

[comrada]

I'm really confused as to why this person hasn't been banned from this site.
It seems like all they do is post reactionary garbage which for the primary goal is to promote white supremacist ideology.

[AnarchoSXE]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, take your able-ist language and fuck off.

[Omniscient]

Just ban the op already.

[comrada]

Are the moderators active on this site?

[(A)]

Fuck you OP and your Ableist bull shit. Fuck you and fuck your beloved nation state.
I hope Raul Casto follows quickly in his brothers shoes and dies and that the Cuban people are the ones to do it.
Reactionary shit.

Viva la revolution.

[Antiochus]

Maybe learn how to spell 'retarded' first? No? Or privilege for that matter. Sigh.

To be completely honest with you, the whole White Privilege theory is more or less, nonsense. If someone wants to have a serious argument about it we can have it. But yes, filth like Raul should not be given the time of day.

[RedSonRising]

Maybe learn how to spell 'retarded' first? No? Or privilege for that matter. Sigh.

To be completely honest with you, the whole White Privilege theory is more or less, nonsense. If someone wants to have a serious argument about it we can have it. But yes, filth like Raul should not be given the time of day.

White Privilege theory, at is core, is simply the acknowledgement that structural racism exists to the detriment of non-whites. It's insufficient on its own without a class analysis, but there is no denying the geographical and institutional advantages of being white when compared to a non-white person of the same income (and in some cases, even those of a higher income).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/24/poor-whites-live-in-richer-neighborhoods-than-middle-class-blacks-and-latinos/?utm_term=.cb3ca167b09a

[MarxSchmarx]

Removed prejudicial language. Sorry for the lag....

[Exterminatus]

White Privilege theory, at is core, is simply the acknowledgement that structural racism exists to the detriment of non-whites. It's insufficient on its own without a class analysis, but there is no denying the geographical and institutional advantages of being white when compared to a non-white person of the same income (and in some cases, even those of a higher income).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/24/poor-whites-live-in-richer-neighborhoods-than-middle-class-blacks-and-latinos/?utm_term=.cb3ca167b09a

For Marxists it is nonsense, in strategic and every other sense.

[Antiochus]

Except it is bullshit. What "privilege" in terms of labor extraction does a destitute Appalachian white person 'have'? Its just completely bullshit. It would be like arguing that Black people are privileged because they dominate entertainment and Jews because they dominate finance. Of course systemic racism exists, but if one ignores its RELATION TO CAPITAL itself, 'acknowledging' it means nothing.

Besides, at the present, 2017, large sections of the white working class in places like the US have become as relegated to destitution as minorities before them. I'll continue, look at every major stage in industrial capitalism. There were always "rich" countries, like say Britain, but Engels and Marx never argued the British WORKING class was "privileged" in the sense that they were somehow at fault for being British. One can recognize that yes, if you were British in 1850 you were probably better off than a Chinese peasant, but only because of the relation to capital. By the SAME relations we must acknowledge that a Colombian comprador bourgeoisie ALSO lives off American workers in addition to Colombians. So what "American/White/British" privilege?

[ComradeAllende]

Ok, before I say anything, y'all need to calm the fuck down. Seriously.

White privilege is a real thing. The fact that white people on average have longer average lifespans, higher incomes, more median household wealth, better access to education and health, etc proves this. After all, white privilege refers (primarily) to the material advantages that white Americans have over Americans of any other color (except Asian Americans, and even then not really).

What white privilege does not mean is that every white person has better social outcomes than the average nonwhite person. A quick look at poverty in Appalachia and the rural South will quickly dispel any notion of the idea that poor whites somehow have it better than rich nonwhites. And frankly, I find the whole "white privilege" strategy as useless. Its overly general in its description and tends to alienate poor and working-class whites from leftist ideas. On average, a working class white man will probably be better off than a working class black man, although the disparity has shrunk (and will continue shrink) so much that the distinction is rather meaningless. The "psychological wages" of being white haven't been significant in a long time (arguably the 1990s); after all, the social conditions of working-class whites have begun to mirror those of poor and working class blacks (i.e. high unemployment rate, alcoholism and drug usage, single-parent households, etc.).

All in all, "white privilege", while real, is basically a moot point. While white people do on average have better social outcomes than non-whites, some of those disparities are being reduced (life expectancy, for instance). And why the fuck are we arguing about whether "white privilege" is a thing? We should be appealing to working-class whites on the basis of anti-capitalism and showing them who their real enemies are; this is the best opportunity we've had with "Middle America" since the Great Depression. These people are literally dying, for fuck's sake. And here we are arguing online over abstract concepts as if that's somehow advancing the revolutionary cause.

[GLF]

It's very easy to prove to any thinking person that, first and foremost, majority privilege exists. That is, there are unearned benefits to living in a society as a member of a racial/ethnic majority. Does anyone dare dispute this? Anyone want to move to Japan and let me know how it works? I don't think you'd feel very equal - even without 400 years of institutionalized racism. I won't do your thinking for you - you can come up with a million and one ways being a member of a majority pays.

Now factor in the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, the effects of which are still felt today, and it becomes a slam dunk obvious case of white privilege. This is important, because I've been in arguments with reactionaries who concede majority privilege without conceding white privilege. And that's a losing position for them to take. You just can't throw out the effects of 400 years of social injustice. Even the very concept of whiteness plays a part - and the reality far more sinister than a simple case of majority privilege.

So here's the real question: do you suggest that people of color, minorities, stand today unaffected by racism? And if you do suggest this, do you realize that you are neo-fascist, reactionary scum?

[Homo Songun]

It's very easy to prove to any thinking person that, first and foremost, majority privilege exists. That is, there are unearned benefits to living in a society as a member of a racial/ethnic majority. Does anyone dare dispute this? Anyone want to move to Japan and let me know how it works? I don't think you'd feel very equal - even without 400 years of institutionalized racism. I won't do your thinking for you - you can come up with a million and one ways being a member of a majority pays.

Now factor in the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, the effects of which are still felt today, and it becomes a slam dunk obvious case of white privilege. This is important, because I've been in arguments with reactionaries who concede majority privilege without conceding white privilege. And that's a losing position for them to take. You just can't throw out the effects of 400 years of social injustice. Even the very concept of whiteness plays a part - and the reality far more sinister than a simple case of majority privilege.

So here's the real question: do you suggest that people of color, minorities, stand today unaffected by racism? And if you do suggest this, do you realize that you are neo-fascist, reactionary scum?

Concluding that somebody denies racism if they deny "white privilege" is not valid reasoning, using either formal or dialectical logic!

[RedSonRising]

This statement:


What "privilege" in terms of labor extraction does a destitute Appalachian white person 'have'?

Is answered by this statement:


Of course systemic racism exists, but if one ignores its RELATION TO CAPITAL itself, 'acknowledging' it means nothing.

The working class is racialized. The historical use of race in the exploitation of the working class has meaningful repercussions to white and black populations. The concept of race is intertwined with the concepts of nationalism, which give the white working class a false identity to invest in, and justifies the permanent existence of a brutalized incarcerated underclass of a mostly non-white lumpen & precariat class. The tools the system uses to extract prison labor from criminalized urban blacks historically segregated in low-income ghettos, for example, are distinct from those used to disinvest form rural white communities. But as was mentioned before, even adjusting for income levels, institutional discrimination in the same geographic regions shows that non-whites are at a statistical disadvantage across the board.


There were always "rich" countries, like say Britain, but Engels and Marx never argued the British WORKING class was "privileged" in the sense that they were somehow at fault for being British. One can recognize that yes, if you were British in 1850 you were probably better off than a Chinese peasant, but only because of the relation to capital.

The theory of white privilege does not "fault" the white working class for being white.


By the SAME relations we must acknowledge that a Colombian comprador bourgeoisie ALSO lives off American workers in addition to Colombians. So what "American/White/British" privilege?

The concept of white privilege is extremely different to any concerning the relationships between different classes in different countries.

[Homo Songun]

The theory of white privilege does not "fault" the white working class for being white.

True. But can we all be honest with each other, and admit that "privilege" is constantly applied as a rhetorical cudgel in leftist and activist spaces to shut people up strictly on the basis of immutable characteristics? Aren't these the prescribed off-label use for "privilege" theories in general?

[willowtooth]

There is a difference between white privilege theory in race relations, which is pretty much universally accepted by all scholars. And #whiteprivilege which was mostly used on twitter by liberals to show examples of racism to their racism denying friends and to sort of joke around, thats about it. Twitters 140 character limit doesn't provide much theory to actually criticize. So we can definitely criticize "twitter politics" as a medium of communication but to deny actual white privilege is akin to denying racism exists itself

[Homo Songun]

to deny actual white privilege is akin to denying racism exists itself
You cannot prove this statement.

[RedSonRising]

True. But can we all be honest with each other, and admit that "privilege" is constantly applied as a rhetorical cudgel in leftist and activist spaces to shut people up strictly on the basis of immutable characteristics? Aren't these the prescribed off-label use for "privilege" theories in general?

Absolutely. And I think privilege theory is overly emphasized in the sphere of neoliberal identity politics to begin with, which involves a lot of that performative nonsense. But among fellow socialists I never expect the concept to be divorced from the theory of class struggle.

[RedSonRising]

You cannot prove this statement.

Well, it's about logical consistency. If you think systemic racism exists, then you must believe that non-whites are harmed and exploited in particular ways that whites are not. That is the essence of white privilege theory.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Well, it's about logical consistency. If you think systemic racism exists, then you must believe that non-whites are harmed and exploited in particular ways that whites are not. That is the essence of white privilege theory.Ok, white privilege exist, what does this sentence provide that is useful for our struggle?

Is the guy who is whipped once privileged when compared to the one whipped twice? That's the problem of white privilege, acknowledging whites statistically tend to be better off than blacks doesn't mean they are not being exploited too, and thus it's a deflection and simply to separate the working class.

[Homo Songun]

Well, it's about logical consistency. If you think systemic racism exists, then you must believe that non-whites are harmed and exploited in particular ways that whites are not. That is the essence of white privilege theory.

Actually you are quite wrong. The "essence of white privilege theory" is that white people gain real material and psychological benefits from the oppression of non-whites. Basically, I have no issue with your first two statements:


systemic racism exists

non-whites are harmed and exploited in particular ways that whites are not

But in my personal opinion, they are tautological in all senses relevant to this discussion. On the contrary, white privilege (as typically used in left circles) is defined as an "invisible knapsack" full of goodies that invests whites in maintaining the status quo.

[RedSonRising]

Ok, white privilege exist, what does this sentence provide that is useful for our struggle?

A tool for white working class activists to build solidarity with non-whites that experience particular harms that whites don't.


Is the guy who is whipped once privileged when compared to the one whipped twice? That's the problem of white privilege, acknowledging whites statistically tend to be better off than blacks doesn't mean they are not being exploited too, and thus it's a deflection and simply to separate the working class.

You're creating a false dichotomy. Nobody here has argued whites aren't also exploited. No socialist would.


Actually you are quite wrong. The "essence of white privilege theory" is that white people gain real material and psychological benefits from the oppression of non-whites. Basically, I have no issue with your first two statements:

So how do whites not have a statistical advantage in job markets, for example, when blacks and Latinos are routinely discriminated against? You can start at the bottom, with two white and non-white poor people, in the same geographic area. It would be hard to call a poor white person "privileged", but you couldn't deny the advantage they would have over someone in similar conditions because of their racial classification. How do whites not benefit psychologically from being spared the social stigma minorities receive in real life as well as media? Those two statements necessarily implicate the aforementioned realities.

Now, how white privilege is used in modern activist circles is a different discussion. It often makes any white person the "oppressor" simply by virtue of being white, and ignores the reality that white workers are exploited, or that a non-white capitalist can exploit a white worker and oppress them.

[Homo Songun]

So how do whites not have a statistical advantage in job markets, for example, when blacks and Latinos are routinely discriminated against?
Privilege theory has no unique explanatory power when it comes to social inequality though. These disparities were widely acknowledged before privilege theory came on the scene. Any number of paradigms can and do attempt to explain them. So why are you axiomatically linking them together like this?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's very easy to prove to any thinking person that, first and foremost, majority privilege exists. That is, there are unearned benefits to living in a society as a member of a racial/ethnic majority. Does anyone dare dispute this?yes: 99% vs 1%, popular classses v ruling classes, anyone in a colonial state vs the burocratic/military personnel from the ruling nation... um the black slaves and the white plantation owners of the US south.


Now factor in the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, the effects of which are still felt today, and it becomes a slam dunk obvious case of white privilege. This is important, because I've been in arguments with reactionaries who concede majority privilege without conceding white privilege. And that's a losing position for them to take. You just can't throw out the effects of 400 years of social injustice. Even the very concept of whiteness plays a part - and the reality far more sinister than a simple case of majority privilege.I don't think slavery and Jim Crow were set up to make white people in general have a better position, I think they were set up to control people... specifically to control labor in the case of slavery so that some elites could amass or maintain their fortunes. For a few hundred families owning the majority of the population maybe having a buffer population was in their interests, maybe ideologically convincing non-slaveowning people (mostly white) to support this system was in their interestes.

when these elites lost their economic and (temporarily) their political power, they already had a ready-made ideology to use to try and regain control. They used white supremacy as the rallying cry to terrorize freed people and to take political power away from white republicans. More like what a counter-revolution looks like and less of some white-trickle-down reward to poorer white people (who were also disenfranchised and lost economic power... just obviously weren't the main target of southern planter reaction.

today, at least not being from the south, I think the main "legacy" of slavery is more just that there is historical precedence and enough racist ideas that anti-black racism can be retooled by our rulers for new circumstances. (the real lived legacy of white supremacy for black folks is probably more from things like redlining and restricted access to some kinds of unionized work and more commonly in professions). But my point is that I don't think majorityness or whiteness can really explain racial inequality and oppression all that well.

[jdneel]

White privilege did indeed exist. I grew up in Texas and remember Jim Crow laws as a child. I remember African-Americans forced to sit in the back of the bus, sit in the balcony at the movies, separate drinking fountains, restrooms and even separate cemetaries.
While it is true that poor whites were also exploited by the capitalist system, given certain circumstances, although rare,I'm they could occasionally rise above their station. For African-Americans, at least in the South, this was not even possible.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think intersectionality is a very important contemporary theory that ultimately revolutionaries cannot afford to dismiss. When Marx and Engels talked about the construction of the bourgeois family they considered it an oppressive structure that reduced family members down to property - they discussed all the aspects of privilege contemporary activists might discuss whilst completely acknowledging the economic and class based origins of those prejudices and structures of systemic oppression. There's a lot of historic developments that have led to 'white privilege' in a very material basis - the lack of investment in black communities has led to black families living in homes with asbestos-lined walls, leading to cumulative health problems, and poor investment in education developed a self-regulating suppression of advancement etc. Revolutionaries cannot afford to ignore or become ignorant of these historic discrepancies and the abuses of power - knowing the gender imbalance and racial imbalance in parliamentary bodies is a tool for damaging the narrative of the capitalist class, for example. 'White privilege' might just be a term as awkward as 'the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry' but it fundamentally represents a concept as unifying as 'an injury to one is an injury to all' - prejudice is an inherent aspect of capitalism and all the working class should unite to stop it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

White privilege did indeed exist. I grew up in Texas and remember Jim Crow laws as a child. I remember African-Americans forced to sit in the back of the bus, sit in the balcony at the movies, separate drinking fountains, restrooms and even separate cemetaries.none of this is in dispute. My point is that "white privilege" theory, while far better than the mainstream lib/conservative post-racial views, tends to be a poor explanation of the role and function of black oppression and the oppression of various ethnic groups in the US more generally.

My question is: does that intellectual framework adequately explain the existence and function of systemic racial inequality? If so, why does racial oppression come in different forms in the north vs the south at the time of Jim Crow? Why wouldn't they be mirror images if the idea was for our rulers to grant favors for some whites? Why does racial oppression take different forms at different times?

I think a much better explanation of oppression is the development of systems of control (systems that help keep the US class system in place and keep the rulers ruling). Southern racism was different than in the north because it was maintained by an older agrarian and more local ruling class. Northern racism in the early 20th century, on the other hand, looks more like racism today because it was maintained by more dominant capitalist elements: redlining by banks and the government for the benefit of housing developers, business-union leaders who dismissed class struggle and politics in favor of cutting deals with bosses and seeking political support from racist city party machines, police who act as managers of the streets to keep the population in line, etc.


While it is true that poor whites were also exploited by the capitalist system, given certain circumstances, although rare,I'm they could occasionally rise above their station. For African-Americans, at least in the South, this was not even possible.i think pretty much everyone who isn't an owner is exploited by the capitalists, but not everyone who is exploited is specifically oppressed. Was mobility easier for poor whites? Yes certainly, but it's pretty small change in the big class picture. Large numbers of poor rural blacks and rural whites in the south migrated and tried to work in factories, shipyards, and the rails. But I don't think the inequality existed for their benefit as much as a way for industries to create tiered workforces. Dubois said that most whites accepted this bargain because at least they thought they could be the top of the bottom run of the hierarchy: they got a phantom reward for this: the wages of whiteness. A wage that can work psychologically/ideologically for part of the white population, but the material result from this "wage" was racist arguments that lead to ending welfare (mostly used by whites numerically), austerity, lower actual wages by creating a tiers in the workforce and 2nd class jobs for various groups at various points. The only consistent material privileging created by racial oppression is the privileging of the needs and wants of the ruling classes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willowtooth]

You cannot prove this statement.
in the USA I can? in america its actually the native americans who are the most discriminated against the most impoverished, in every measurable category poverty, police brutality access to schools, healthcare, environmental racism, every aspect you can imagine, yet most anti racist action is based on black racism because according to racist theory, which was invented by whites, in order to define themselves as white, they invented the term, and they put black people on the bottom so even though another race may be discriminated against worse than blacks, in whatever country, the general sense of racism is based on black vs white, black on the bottom white on the top. It's not like the concept of race doesn't exist in other countries and that blacks are always at the bottom in whatever racial caste exists. whether its south america the middle east or japan. Even in asia, they have developed a racial caste based on skin color, lighter skinned east asians like the japanese and koreans at the top and darker skinned asians like aborigine and Filipinos at the bottom. So black lives matter is not just african american lives matter its Javan lives mater, hazara lives matter, bantu lives matter.

to quote W.E.B. Du bois


It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule

[Homo Songun]

in the USA I can? in america its actually the native americans who are the most discriminated against the most impoverished, in every measurable category poverty, police brutality access to schools, healthcare, environmental racism, every aspect you can imagine, yet most anti racist action is based on black racism because according to racist theory, which was invented by whites, in order to define themselves as white, they invented the term, and they put black people on the bottom so even though another race may be discriminated against worse than blacks

That is actually an interesting concept, I will take it under consideration. But you are still wrong as far as your original statement "denying white skin privilege is akin to denying racism". It is simply that ''white skin privilege' is as much an ideological construct as say, the catechism of the Catholic church. They both condemn racism, I assure you.

[willowtooth]

That is actually an interesting concept, I will take it under consideration. But you are still wrong as far as your original statement "denying white skin privilege is akin to denying racism". It is simply that ''white skin privilege' is as much an ideological construct as say, the catechism of the Catholic church. They both condemn racism, I assure you.
what do you mean its an ideological construct?

[Homo Songun]

what do you mean its an ideological construct?
I'm not using any fancy specialized meaning for 'ideological construct'. There is an discourse called "white privilege" which attempts to make sense of institutional racism. There are many other discourses, for example "the inherent sinfulness of mankind after Adam's fall from grace", and so on. You are conflating "white privilege" and the aspects of social reality it refers to because it is an ideological construct.

[willowtooth]

I'm not using any fancy specialized meaning for 'ideological construct'. There is an discourse called "white privilege" which attempts to make sense of institutional racism. There are many other discourses, for example "the inherent sinfulness of mankind after Adam's fall from grace", and so on. You are conflating "white privilege" and the aspects of social reality it refers to because it is an ideological construct.
Why do you consider white privilege to be just an ideological construct but not racism?

[Homo Songun]

Why do you consider white privilege to be just an ideological construct but not racism?

I don't know where you are getting that from, so I can't say more.

---

For what it is worth, Ted Allen was a Marxist intellectual whose book "The Invention of the White Race" is credited with the concept of white privilege. Here's an article (http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html) by him summarizing his book.

[willowtooth]

I don't know where you are getting that from, so I can't say more.

---

For what it is worth, Ted Allen was a Marxist intellectual whose book "The Invention of the White Race" is credited with the concept of white privilege. Here's an article (http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html) by him summarizing his book.

there's a difference between twitter politics and actual white privilege theory, twitter politics is shallow. And thats what your really annoyed with, not the actual race relations theory which is actually explained pretty well in that book you listed, atleast in the summary, I honestly can't imagine what you would find wrong with anything in that. But i can imagine what you would find wrong with this
_tt8zpTwFSk

so we are talking about different things if your going criticize certain actions taken by certain groups,and certain theories thats fine but you should list them, but I stand by my earlier statement that denying white privilege is akin to denying the existence of racism, it's like saying there are no official laws directed at exploiting people based on race anymore therefore racism is officially over. So if you dont agree with that then I must assume you either misunderstand the meaning of the term "white privilege" or you are using the term to describe twitter politics something that has nothing to do with it, because you have simply never heard the term before.