Are workers more likely to become racists?

[bleedingheart]

Hi Comrades!:)

Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine regarding the problem of racism. He said in no uncertain terms that racism normally stems from the poor, working class community:(, for the simple reason that they have enough motives to become racist.

For instance, a local worker may fear losing his job to a foreign worker, and hence he may develop a strong dislike for foreigners. This translates to racism.:crying:

The rich man, OTOH, would do the exact opposite, which is to try and be non-racist, because the more foreign workers, the less he has to spend on wages. So at least for the sake of profits, he has to do away with racism and xenophobia.:D

This is my friend's reasoning, and I feel there's some truth to it. I mean, only frustrated people make excuses, they always need a scapegoat, and blaming members of other races becomes a convenient excuse for most people. And workers have every reason to feel frustrated with the world around them, and consequently, become racists.

What do others think?

[Chapter 24]

Racism - and for that matter all forms of discrimination (xenophobia, homophobia, etc.) - is a tool used to divide the working class by capitalists. What you said about a worker losing his job to a foreigner, for example, is discussed in the media and they translate it to, "These foreigners are stealing American jobs!" In reality, capitalists can't afford not to ship jobs overseas as countries such as India are a cheaper source of labor without the hassle of unions and worker's rights.
Consequently, capitalism itself knows no race. It spreads throughout in all countries, developed and third world. This is what we're currently seeing with the rise of globalization by planning based on economists and business interests.

[rocker935]

Yeh, I was talking to a kid at school trying to find out why he was racist towards Mexicans. And he explained to me the number of bad experiences he has had with mexicans. He also looked around the room and basically explained what was wrong with most the mexicans in the room. he said some where crack dealers and he said that some would steal shit from your grandmother.

So I think that the experiences one has can lead to a shit load of racism. But you also have to analyze why these bad experiences occur, i think usually you will find that the problems stem from poverty and class.

[Vanguard1917]

No, racism is a top-down phenomenon. Contrary to what some may believe, workers tend to make up the least racist sections of society, at least in the big cities. Whereas middle and upper class people like to insulate themselves from 'ethnic communities' (and, indeed, from the working class population in general) by hiding away for most of the time in privileged white environments (whether work-related, cultural or home), the urban white working class in much of the Western world today lives and works side-by-side with people from all sorts of backgrounds with relatively very little 'racial tension'. The same working class people who are looked down upon as 'racist' by the snotty middle classes for not being up-to-date with all the new trendy PC words and labels - those same workers are also statistically most likely to have workmates, friends, partners and family members from 'ethnic' backgrounds.

This is not to say that tensions can't arise between workers around racial and ethnic lines. They can and they do; and when they do they cause serious divisions which undermine class solidarity. But when these tensions do arise, they have their source in the capitalist class and its backers in the middle classes. The capitalist class has an objective interest in keeping the working class divided. They scapegoat immigrants for the social problems which capitalism cannot solve and they maintain the national borders which separate the workers of each country from their brothers and sisters abroad.

[Revolutiondownunder]

This is my experience as well.

The least racist "class" would be the university eductaed middle classes who had parents who were university educated professionals.

A lot of what the OP said does "sound" right to the average working class person. Big business IS bringing in Mass immigration.

But its not too much of a stretch to see that the capitalists would want to divide these new communities to create as much labour competition as possible.

Bring in people of different "races" then stir up racism and make a profit. I wouldnt put it past them, it makes them more money so from a capitalists point of view it makes sense, but all the worker sees is more and more "different" people around, and then they hear the capitalist press complaining about the new arrivals.

What does everyone think? does it make sense?

[communard resolution]

I think that middle-class people can be every bit as racist, it's just they know how to hide it behind a liberal facade. So a worker who makes an politically insensitive remark will be looked down upon by an middle-class person not for their racism, but for the fact that he/she hasn't mastered the codes to present him/herself as cultured and cosmopolitan. But in fact, the middle-class toff might be more racist on the inside than the worker.

Who were the first people in the UK to mix with Jamaican immigrants and adapt bits and pieces of their culture? The skinheads of the late 60s - working class youth. Long before middle-class liberals started celebrating cultural diversity (as long as it isn't taking place in their neighbourhood).

[Revolutiondownunder]

Long before middle-class liberals started celebrating cultural diversity (as long as it isn't taking place in their neighbourhood).

Yes I have noticed that the profesional class lefties are always embracing diversity.... until you ask them to walk through a "diverse" working class area late at night.

Its slightly disgusting how some people who at the dinner table are loudly anti-racist but seem to treat people of differing backgrounds like some sort of exotic pet to be babied and talked about.. but not to move next door of course..:rolleyes:

[avantgarde]

A labor aristocracy exists in all countries, and through higher wages and salaries these upper-strata professional workers have been corrupted to the cause of social-democracy and imperialism. Labor aristocracy seeks to convince workers not to create their own organizations which reflect their own class interests, but to accept the bourgeois state as the 'mediator' of industrial disputes. This robs the working class of it's striking power and ties it to the support of Capital at home and imperialism to defend Capital abroad.

Particularly evident in the labor aristocracy is racism and other forms of chauvinism and nationalism, for example in Australia the 'labor establishment' fervently defended the White Australia Policy and was very racist. This chauvanist poison ties the working class to capitalism and is very dangerous.

[ships-cat]

This brings back memories of an article I read many years ago. I can't vouch as to its accuracy.

The author contrasted stated opinions vs practical behaviour between the "North" and "South" of the USA. He pointed out that the "North" was viewed as having the best, least racist, approach to blacks and other "ethnic minorities". (although it should be pointed out that in some cities, such as Detroit, they where "ethnic majorities"). They where more liberal, and more likely to espouse racial equality. (indeed, to impose it).

The South, on the other hand, was regarded as racist and socially backward, and required "re-educating". (consider the forced actions of the Federal Government in imposing measures such as mixed-race schools etc back in the 60's).

And yet, here was the strange thing. Broadly speaking, white people in the North didn't want to actually MIX with blacks; there was the tendency to have "black" areas and "white" areas. (painting with a very broad brush).

In the South, however, blacks and whites had a greater tendency to live side-by-side; there where fewer 'ghettoes' and a much greater blend across cities and suburbs.

Not sure how relevant this is, but it IS nevertheless curious.

Meow Purr :)

[bleedingheart]

This brings back memories of an article I read many years ago. I can't vouch as to its accuracy.

The author contrasted stated opinions vs practical behaviour between the "North" and "South" of the USA. He pointed out that the "North" was viewed as having the best, least racist, approach to blacks and other "ethnic minorities". (although it should be pointed out that in some cities, such as Detroit, they where "ethnic majorities"). They where more liberal, and more likely to espouse racial equality. (indeed, to impose it).

The South, on the other hand, was regarded as racist and socially backward, and required "re-educating". (consider the forced actions of the Federal Government in imposing measures such as mixed-race schools etc back in the 60's).

And yet, here was the strange thing. Broadly speaking, white people in the North didn't want to actually MIX with blacks; there was the tendency to have "black" areas and "white" areas. (painting with a very broad brush).

In the South, however, blacks and whites had a greater tendency to live side-by-side; there where fewer 'ghettoes' and a much greater blend across cities and suburbs.

Not sure how relevant this is, but it IS nevertheless curious.


Curious indeed. Doesn't this prove the right-wing nuts right? They always seem to allege that even in so-called multicultural societies, the various ethnic groups stick to each other, rarely interacting with others.:( They point to this, and say racial segregation takes place naturally, even in multicultural societies, where different races live together.:confused:

[Tower of Bebel]

I agree with much of the explanation by Vanguard1917.

In my country today's traditional workers are the most racist of all social groups. This has been translated in the continuous growth of neofascism, especially where the working class is at its weakest: Flanders.
It has something to do with the position of the country within newly globalized, neoliberal capitalism and the position they have in the production relations of society. Today's racism - sometimes described as "new racism" - in the fully developed capitalist countries is based upon a growing struggle for scarce means of existence. Neoliberal has methodically attack(ed) state interventions which once were a benefit to the working class; while it also has made severe blows against old reformist or statist organizations of that working class. This situation, characterized by growing liberal individualism and a growing divergence between rich and poor, made many members of the oppressed classes fearful of immigrants.
Now - That doesn't mean you should qualify the working class, or at least the most exploited amongst them, as the most racist class. Their numbers would make them the most racist, and the growth of neofascism would also suggest something in that direction, but we shouldn't forget that also petit-bourgeois and capitalist elements can become racist. They can become racist for almost the same reason. But the working class differs from these classes. While the (petty-)bourgeoisie can overcome racism by believes the proletariat can also overcome racism by proletarian internationalism. Proletarian internationalism is much more than just an idea. It's a goal. Proletarian internationalism is one of the keys to the abolishment of classes and the abolishment of racism as a by-product of these classes.
So instead of looking at numbers (which is sometimes simply superficial) or the disadvantage the working class has towards exploitation (which makes them the first to experience scarcity and exhibit forms of racism) we should look at the role a certain class can play with relation to the abolishment of racism. In this case the proletariat is indeed the least racist class. It is in its benefit to counter racism while other class make profits on racism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I can say that in Israel, the most racist section of the Jewish population is without a single doubt the Ashkenazi higher middle class. Workers aren't short on it either, but I've met quite a few Jewish working class anti-racists of all sorts of shades. So the idea that workers are naturally racist is bullshit in practice and expresses middle class apathy towards the workers.

[Revolutiondownunder]

expresses middle class apathy towards the workers.


I have noticed that middle class liberal anti-racists do tend to despise working class people in general, perhaps even white working people in particular.

I dont know if I would build a theory on it though.

[Organic Revolution]

For instance, a local worker may fear losing his job to a foreign worker, and hence he may develop a strong dislike for foreigners. This translates to racism.:crying:

This is true, but to an extent. The white working class has more of a predisposition towards racism because of the privileges they enjoy by being white, and the system has exploited this through neo-colonialism, and using people of color as a cheap source of labor.


The rich man, OTOH, would do the exact opposite, which is to try and be non-racist, because the more foreign workers, the less he has to spend on wages. So at least for the sake of profits, he has to do away with racism and xenophobia.:D

That is incredibly wrong. The rich man is normally a white male, who has in his mind, the idea that he is king of the universe because of his white privilege, and therefor thinks that using people of color as wage-slaves is totally acceptable. There is a higher chance that racism and xenophobia will be prevalent within bourgeois and petty-bourgeois communities because of the need for a subserviant labor force.


This is my friend's reasoning, and I feel there's some truth to it. I mean, only frustrated people make excuses, they always need a scapegoat, and blaming members of other races becomes a convenient excuse for most people. And workers have every reason to feel frustrated with the world around them, and consequently, become racists.

You should look into your analysis of class and race, its a tad backwards.

[Vanguard1917]

The white working class has more of a predisposition towards racism


In comparison with whom? The white middle class? As i have pointed out above, the working class tends to make up, contrary to popular belief, the least racist sections of society, as exemplified by its everyday interaction with 'people of colour' - something which you find far less in middle class environments.



and using people of color as a cheap source of labor.



This line of reasoning risks blaming immigration for racism, which is wrong and unacceptable. The idea that racial tensions are caused by the employment of immigrant labour is the philistine logic of far-right groups.

[Reuben]

I have noticed that middle class liberal anti-racists do tend to despise working class people in general, perhaps even white working people in particular.

I dont know if I would build a theory on it though.

Yes there is indeed a distinct middle class form of anti-racism which disparages the working class. You often hear middle class wankers demonstrating their respect for immigrants by comparing their work ethic favourably with that of the 'lazy' british worker. You will also hear members of the liberal middle classes who are lucky enough to have reasonably fulfilling decent paying jobs asserting that we need immigrants because 'our boys' are so unreasonably unwilling to to pick strawberries for shitty wages. When members of the anglo-saxon middle class talk unfavourably about the english -whether it be our work ethic or our drinking culture or whatever - they are not actually being self depricating. They are talking about the lower orders.

Why do the liberal middle classes engage in this kind of rhetoic? Because it allows them to reconcile their political identity with their class position. It allows them to articulate their sense of superiority over the working class in a way that sounds politically progressive.

[Dr Mindbender]

racism is a beourgiose tool of divide and conquer.

When you have social dispair without class conciousness, racism will flourish.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

racism is a beourgiose tool of divide and conquer.

When you have social dispair without class conciousness, racism will flourish.

Spot on. The bourgeoisies press will blame a group of people who are easy to blame and struggle to speak back. Many groups are blamed when it convinces the upper class. Be it muslims are destorying culture!!!!!! in which they "Forget" that culture moves forwards and is not static.

A serious problem is that when a minority is blamed the blame gets worse and worse and the attacks upon the minoirty get worse and worse. Such as the UK debate thread in which Travlers were being discused. Blaming travlers does not have the social stigma blaming other minorities have so quickly it escerlates into = hitler was right with the gypsies.

Suddenly all the other reactionaries post the same stuff until confronted in which is de-escerlated into "just send them to -----" comments to them abandoning the thread after running out of things to parrot.

Then after some people who arnt complete and utter tools started to post slightly more sane things (not as awsome as my stuff ) such as dont genrelize. (although still failing to meet on some importent points) the thread went to its current postion in which they are discusing why people do over generalize.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes there is indeed a distinct middle class form of anti-racism which disparages the working class. You often hear middle class wankers demonstrating their respect for immigrants by comparing their work ethic favourably with that of the 'lazy' british worker. You will also hear members of the liberal middle classes who are lucky enough to have reasonably fulfilling decent paying jobs asserting that we need immigrants because 'our boys' are so unreasonably unwilling to to pick strawberries for shitty wages. When members of the anglo-saxon middle class talk unfavourably about the english -whether it be our work ethic or our drinking culture or whatever - they are not actually being self depricating. They are talking about the lower orders.

Why do the liberal middle classes engage in this kind of rhetoic? Because it allows them to reconcile their political identity with their class position. It allows them to articulate their sense of superiority over the working class in a way that sounds politically progressive.


Yeah, well observed, especially the last paragraph. In Britain there's a long tradition of that. Like those 19th century British colonialists who had a habit of the contrasting the supposedly obedient and humble Indian masses with the ungrateful indolent workforce at home.

Of course, such sentiments aren't limited to the toff elite. They're actually quite prevalent on the left. Here is, for example, Mark Steel, Independent columnist and SWP member, basically arguing that we should support immigration because immigrants compare favourably with the unruly and unrefined British masses (in an article titled 'There is another way of dealing with immigration'):



I saw an illustration recently of how little logic there is in the arguments against immigration, on a ferry crossing from Calais. A group of eight blokes from Kent had travelled to France for the day to get paralytic, and were burping their way through the departure lounge. One of them grabbed the French woman taking boarding cards and said: "Oy darling, whenzzz a bloody here what time's the (barup) oo blimey Ingerlaaand WHERE'S THIS are you a boat when's the boat?" Then they yelled and puked their way across the Channel, before making the predictable joke in Dover, "here, if we get stopped just say we're asylum-seekers and they'll let us straight through yawaaaay haaa", which they repeated several thousand times. And I thought: "These blokes must agree the country is full up. So why don't we suggest they sod off back to France to be banged up in Sangatte, and in their place we take eight asylum-seekers, who will be more pleasant all round and sure to ease the overcrowding as they'll be a lot skinnier than these fat twats?"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020627/ai_n12614163

[Oneironaut]

I think that middle-class people can be every bit as racist, it's just they know how to hide it behind a liberal facade. So a worker who makes an politically insensitive remark will be looked down upon by an middle-class person not for their racism, but for the fact that he/she hasn't mastered the codes to present him/herself as cultured and cosmopolitan. But in fact, the middle-class toff might be more racist on the inside than the worker.

I agree with this to a large extent. Being a young union worker with ties to the college community I have been placed in a situation to compare the attitudes of both classes. Amongst those in my local laborers' union, racism is not nearly as evident as it is amongst college-educated youth. However, sexism is very prevalent in my union which I constantly battle with every day. The university kids seem to be much more accepting of the gay community and sympathize more with feminist movements than those in my union. This basically comes down to the liberal atmosphere at universities and the presence of clubs like rainbow alliance. As far as racism is concerned amongst the working class, those I work with make judgments on others solely based on their work ethic.

[MarxSchmarx]

This hypothesis about whether workers are more likely to become (or already be) racist needs statistical testing.

In this day and age, few people openly call themselves racist. This is probably true of more educated people, who are aware of the social taboos against "being racist". However, there are ways by which we can measure people's "subconscious" racist views, e.g.:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1097677.htm
So, I think if we can perform an experiment like this, using class determining variables like income and education and stuff, while controlling for the participant's race and possibly geography, then we can test to see if being "more racist" as measured by tests like these correlates with income.

I googled to see if anything had been done in this area, and found only one obvious study. It tried to look at how class determining variables like education level, income, and how people described their jobs (white collar, blue collar, professional, etc...) were related to their vote for what was essentially a single issue, racist candidate:
Racial Attitudes and the Wallace Vote: A Study of the 1968 Election in Memphis, by Yung Wie and H. R. Mahood Polity (1971) which is old but was an interesting read.

I also recently heard a talk by some behavioral economists who did experiments in Vietnam (I think) where they looked at how likely people were to lend money to different ethnic groups, based on their income and their own ethnic background, but I forgot the conclusion.

Does anybody else know of some kind of systematic empirical study into this question?