|
Post by a little bit o che on Jan 12, 2004 21:29:05 GMT -5
Looking at the White Working Class Historically by Political Prisoner David Gilbert
One of the supreme issues for our movement is summed-up in the contradictions of the term “white working class”. On one hand there is the class designation that should imply, along with all other workers of the world, a fundamental role in the overthrow of capitalism. On the other hand, there is the identification of being part of a (“white”) oppressor nation.
Historically, we must admit that the identity with the oppressor nation has been primary. There have been times of fierce struggle around economic issues but precious little in the way of a revolutionary challenge to the system itself. There have been moments of uniting with Black and other Third World workers in union struggles, but more often than not an opposition to full equality and a disrespect for the self-determination of other oppressed peoples. These negative trends have been particularly pronounced within the current era of history (since WW2). White labor has been either a legal opposition within or an active component of the U.S. imperial system.
There have been two basic responses to this reality by the white left. 1) The main position by far has been opportunism. This has entailed an unwillingness to recognize the leading role within the U.S. of national liberation struggles, a failure to make the fight against white supremacy a conscious and prime element of all organizing, and, related to the above, a general lack of revolutionary combativeness against the imperial state. More specifically, opportunism either justifies the generally racist history of the white working class and our left or romanticizes that history by presenting it as much more anti-racist than reality merits. 2) Our own tendency, at its best moments, has recognized the leading role of national liberation and the essential position of solidarity to building any revolutionary consciousness among whites. We have often, however, fallen into an elitist or perhaps defeatist view that dismisses the possibility of organizing significant numbers of white people particularly working class whites.
There is very little analysis, and even less practice, that is both real about the nature and consciousness of the white working class and yet holds out the prospect of organizing a large number on a revolutionary basis. This fissure will not be joined by some magical leap of abstract thought – either by evoking classical theories of class or by lapsing into cultural or biological determinism. We must use our tools of analysis (materialism) to understand concretely how this contradiction developed (historically). But an historical view can not be static. In seeing how certain forces developed, we must also look (dialectically) at under what conditions and through what means the contradiction can be transformed.
In this review, I want to look at three historical studies that contribute to the needed discussion: 1) Ted Allen’s two essays in White Supremacy (a collection printed by Sojourner Truth Organization); 2) W.E.B. DuBois, Black Reconstruction (New York: 1933) 3); J. Sakai, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat (Chicago: 1983)
|
|
|
Post by a little bit o che on Jan 12, 2004 21:31:50 GMT -5
(((more excerpts from Gilbert))) C) J. Sakai’s Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat
While Allen and DuBois focus on specific periods, Sakai sketches the whole time from the first European settlement to the current time. Also, Sakai examines the relationship of the white proletariat to Native Americans, Mexicanos, and Asians, as well as to the Black nation.
This, of course, is quite a scope to cover in one book. Sakai starts from an explicit political perspective: what is called the “United States” ... “is really a Euroamerican settler empire, built on colonially oppressed nations and peoples...” In this light, a lot is revealed about U.S. history that is not only quite different from what we learned in school but that also debunks interpretations generally put out by the white left.
Even for those of us who think we understand the white supremacist core of U.S. history, reading Settlers is still quite an education. To take one stark example, when the Europeans first arrived there were an estimated 10 million Natives in North America. By 1900, there were only 300,000. Sakai also critiques the white supremacist nature of movements mythologized by the left such as Bacon’s Rebellion, Jacksonian Democracy, and the struggle for the 8 hour work day. Sakai shows that integral to most advances of “democratic” reform for white workers was an active consolidation of privileges at the expense of colonized Third World peoples.
In covering such a range, there are some points of interpretations that could be questioned. Overall it is a very revealing and useful look at U.S. history. For this review, I just want to look at one period, the 1930’s. Then we also will examine the overall political conclusions that Sakai draws.
The Depression of the 1930’s was a time of intensified class struggle, the building of the CIO,[ 6 ] the famed sit-down strikes such as Flint, the height of the Communist Party USA. The CIO of this period has often been praised by leftists as exemplary in including Black workers in its organizing drive.
Sakai sees the essence of the period as the integration of the various European immigrant minorities into the privileges of the settler nation (white Amerika). In return, as U.S. imperialism launched its drive for world hegemony, it could depend upon the armies of solidly united settlers (including the whole white working class) serving imperialism at home and on the battlefield. The New Deal ended industrial serfdom and gave the European “ethnic” national minorities integration as Amerikans by sharply raising their privileges – but only in the settler way: in government regulated unions loyal to U.S. imperialism.
Where the CIO organized Black workers it was utilitarian rather than principled. By the 1930’s Black labor had come to play a strategic role in 5 industries (usually performing the dirtiest and most hazardous jobs at lower pay): automotive, steel, meat packing, coal, railroads. Thus, in a number of industrial centers, the CIO unions could not be secure without controlling Afrikan (Black) labor. “The CIO’s policy, then, became to promote integration under settler leadership where Afrikan labor was numerous and strong (such as the foundries, the meat packing plants, etc.) and to maintain segregation and Jim Crow in situations where Afrikan labor was numerically lesser and weak. Integration and segregation were but two aspects of the same settler hegemony.” (p.86)
At the same time, it was CIO practice to reserve the skilled crafts and more desirable production jobs for white (male) workers. For example, the first UAW/GM contract that resulted from the great Flint sit-down strike contained a “noninterchangibility” clause which in essence made it illegal for Black workers to move up from being janitors or foundry workers. Such policy came on the heels of Depression trends that had forced Blacks out of the better jobs. Between 1930-1936 some 50% of all Afrikan skilled workers were pushed out of their jobs.
Roosevelt’s support of the CIO came from a strategy to control and channel the class struggle. A significant factor in the success of the 1930’s union organizing drives was the government’s refusal to use armed repression. No U.S. armed forces were used against Euro-Amerikan workers from 1933-1941.[ 7 ]
This policy was in marked contrast to, for example, the attack on the Nationalist party in Puerto Rico. In 1937, one month after President Roosevelt refused to use force against the Flint sit-down strike, U.S. police opened fire on a peaceful nationalist parade in Ponce, Puerto Rico. Nineteen Puerto Rican citizens were killed and over 100 wounded. While leftists committed to organizing of the 30’s might want to bring in different examples and argue Sakai’s interpretations, I think that overall subsequent history of the CIO has been clear: it has both reinforced white monopolies on preferred jobs and has been a loyal component of U.S. imperial policy abroad.[ 8 ]
What conclusions about the white working class can we draw from this history? Sakai takes a definite and challenging position. Settlers is addressed, internally, for discussion among Third World revolutionaries. Still, it is important for us to grapple with its politics and to apply those lessons to our own situation and responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by little bit o che on Jan 12, 2004 21:32:45 GMT -5
(((more excerpts)))
Sakai’s general view of the history is that the masses of whites have advanced themselves primarily by oppressing Third World people – not by any means of class struggle. Also that for most[ 9 ] of U.S. history the proletariat has been a colonial proletariat, made up only of oppressed Afrikan, Indian, Latino and Asian workers. On top of this basic history, U.S. imperial hegemony after WW2 raised privileges to another level. “Those expansionist years of 1945-1965... saw the final promotion of the white proletariat. This was an en masse promotion so profound that it eliminated not only consciousness, but the class itself.” (p.147)
Thus, for Sakai, there is an oppressor nation but it doesn’t have a worker class, at least not in any politically meaningful sense of the term. To buttress this position Sakai, 1) discusses the supra-class cultural and ideological unification in the white community; 2) points to the much higher standard of living for white-Americans; and 3) presents census statistics to indicate that whites are predominantly (over 60%) bourgeois, middle class and labor aristocracy. Here, Sakai enumerates class based solely on white male jobs in order to correct for situations where the woman’s lower status job is a second income for the family involved. This method, however, fails to take account of the growing number of families where the woman’s wages are the primary income. The methodological question also relates to the potential for women’s oppression to be a source for a progressive current within the white working class.
In a way, Sakai puts forward a direct negation of the opportunist “Marxist” position that makes class designation everything and liquidates the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nation.
Sakai’s survey of U.S. history understates the examples of fierce class struggle within the oppressor nation which imply at least some basis for dissatisfaction and disloyalty by working whites. Still, these examples – defined primarily around economic demands and usually resolved by consolidation of privileges relative to Third World workers – can not be parlayed into a history of “revolutionary class struggle”.
Class consciousness can not be defined solely by economic demands. At its heart, it is a movement toward the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. “Proletariat internationalism” – solidarity with all other peoples oppressed and exploited by imperialism – is a necessary and essential feature of revolutionary class consciousness. In our condition, this requires up front support for and alliance with the oppressed nations, particularly those within the U.S. (Black, Mexicano, Native). Thus white supremacy and class consciousness can not peacefully co-exist with each other. One chokes off the other. An honest view of the 350 year history clearly shows that the alignment with white supremacy has predominated over the revolutionary class consciousness.
Furthermore, the culture of a more or less unified, supra-class, white supremacist outlook is also a very important factor. That culture is a reflection of a common history as part of an oppressor nation; it also becomes a material force in perpetuating that outlook and those choices. Common culture is a format to organize even those whites with the least material stake in white supremacy.
All the above considerations, however, do not provide a complete class analysis. There are other aspects of people’s relationship to the mode of production which are important. A central distinction is between those who own or control the means of production (e.g., corporations, banks, real estate) and families who live by wages or salaries, i.e., by working for someone else. Those who live by the sale of labor power have little control or access to the basic power that determines the purpose of production and the direction of society as a whole. In the best of times, most white workers may feel comfortable; in periods of crisis, the stress might be felt and resolved on qualitatively different lines within the oppressor nation (e.g., which class bears the costs of an imperialist war or feels the brunt of economic decline). Even among whites, those who aren’t in control have a basic interest in a transformation of society. It may not be expressed in “standard of living” (goods that can be purchased) as much as in the quality of life (e.g., war, environment, health, and the impact of racism, sexism, decadence). Crises can bring these contradictions more to the surface, expressing the necessity to reorganize society.
In my view there definitely is a white working class. It is closely tied to imperialism; the labor aristocracy is the dominant sector, the class as a whole has been corrupted by white supremacy; but, the class within the oppressor nation that lives by the sale of their labor power has not disappeared. This is not just an academic distinction; under certain historical conditions it can have important meaning.
A dialectical analysis goes beyond description to look at both the process of development and the potential for transformation. This is the great value of the Ted Allen essays. They show how white supremacy was a conscious construction by the ruling class under specific historical conditions. This implies that, under different historical conditions, there also can be a conscious deconstruction by oppressed nations, women, and the working class. Our analysis has to look for potential historical changes and movement activity that could promote revolutionary consciousness within the white working class.
In approaching such an analysis, we must guard against the mechanical notion that economic decline will in itself lessen racism. The lessons from DuBois’ description of the “anti-draft” riots of the 1860’s (as well as our experience over the last 20 years) shows the opposite to be true. Under economic pressure, the spontaneous tendency is to fight harder for white supremacy. While the absolute value of privilege might decrease, the relative value is usually increasing as Third World people abroad and within the U.S. bear the worst hardships of the crisis. The white workers closest to the level of Third World workers can be the most virulent and violent in fighting for white supremacy.
Rarely have major sectors of the white working class been won over to revolutionary consciousness based on a reform interest. Imperialism in ascendancy has been able to offer them more bread and butter than the abstraction of international solidarity. But a more fundamental interest could emerge in a situation where imperialism in crisis can’t deliver and where the possibility of replacing imperialism with a more humane system becomes tangible.
|
|
|
Post by little bit o che on Jan 12, 2004 21:33:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jan 22, 2004 10:13:39 GMT -5
Let's assume that David Gilbert's analysis is fundamentally accurate (it's certainly plausible).
Since many and perhaps even most "lefties" in the U.S. are white males from the "labor aristocracy" or even higher on the food chain, what conclusions regarding their political activity should they draw from Gilbert's analysis?
Should they form "support groups" for black and brown revolutionary groups?
Should they "go to" the black and brown proletariat...work at "those kinds" of jobs, adopt at least the veneer of black and brown "culture", "proletarianize" themselves, etc.?
Would the deliberate creation of a "mythology" of anti-racist white working class struggle be a "useful tool" in winning white workers to communism? How "mythological" would it have to be?
Are there other possible responses?
And then there's this: even if Gilbert's analysis is accurate, will it remain so as capitalism ages?
Does the "settler proletariat" ever become a true proletariat? Or does it "always" retreat into fascism (defense of white male privilege) as conditions deteriorate?
Gilbert wrote: Sakai’s general view of the history is that the masses of whites have advanced themselves primarily by oppressing Third World people - not by any means of class struggle.
This is confusing. Does Sakai suggest that white workers consciously decided that oppressing Third World people was "the way to get ahead in life"? Or is he simply reporting an economic "fact": the higher standards-of-living in the imperialist countries result from the oppression of Third World peoples and not as a consequence of class struggle?
It strikes me that, although plausible, there "has" to be a mistake in this analysis...because it leads into a "blind alley".
To the question "what is to be done?", it answers "nothing, really"...not if you are a while male leftist. If proletarian revolution takes place in the U.S., it "will be made" by "true" proletarians--black people and brown people.
In general, a theory that leads to an "absurd" conclusion should generate redoubled skepticism, should makes us especially cautious of accepting it. More and weightier evidence should be demanded.
But it's an interesting hypothesis...and could be right.
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Jan 22, 2004 10:26:05 GMT -5
redstar wrote: "Let's assume that David Gilbert's analysis is fundamentally accurate (it's certainly plausible)."
In fact, i think it is inaccurate -- and it would be worth taking the time to dig into why. I hope to return and do that.
rs wrote: "Since many and perhaps even most "lefties" in the U.S. are white males from the "labor aristocracy" or even higher on the food chain, what conclusions regarding their political activity should they draw from Gilbert's analysis?"
You have put your finger on one of the huge problems with this theory: It is a self-neutralizing theory.
The forces Gilbert was involved with (on the outside) believed in a theory of "exceptional white people" -- i.e. they despaired that any SECTION of white people could come over to the revolution, and so believed that the few individuals like them (who were essentially self-described "race traitors") should "stand with" the masses of Black and Latino people -- without any serious attempt or prospect of moving significant political forces to that stand.
So what you got was self-important posturing-in-isolation and then (often) capitulation into despair.
It was a pessimmistic, moralistic, and self-neutralizing stand. And it really abandoned the important anti-racist work of WINNING sections of white folks (including especually proletarians and youth) to a radical appreciation of the importance of Black liberation.
In short: this theoy is both wrong (factually) and paralyzing (in practice).
|
|
|
Post by romanmeal on Jan 24, 2004 11:31:01 GMT -5
I think Gilbert is almost entirely correct. There isn’t a white working class in any revolutionary-politically meaningful sense. Does this mean that there will be no white resistance and solidarity with the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle? Of course not. It just means that class isn’t going to be the main basis of that solidarity. I think that this observation is pretty apparent when you take an honest look at the white movement.
I think that white revolutionaries are exceptional. But does this lead to a politics of despair? I don’t think it necessarily does. There are all kinds of contradictions within the oppressor nation that exceptional whites can use to the advantage of the imperialized and captive nations. And, it is their duty to carry out tasks to aid the oppressed nations - if possible, under the leadership of vanguard organizations (I don’t necessarily mean Leninist vanguard). The specifics of “what to do” is going to vary greatly depending on where you are.
When I look at all the white oriented Leninist sects dreaming about a revolution among white workers when it is obviously the case that they are not revolutionary - chanting "You have nothing to lose but your chains...", while thinking, "..and tvs, toasters, pets, cars, houses, cheap consumer goods, etc.." This absolute denial of reality seems more despairing to me.
Like a labor aristocracy, it is a dead end to try to mobilize the so called white working class to the revolution on the basis of class - “bread and butter“ issues. Why? Because the oppressor nation working class benefits as imperialism benefits. This doesn’t mean “revolution is impossible”, it just means the so called white working class isn’t going to be leading it, at least not for a long time. This also doesn’t mean they can’t be mobilized around other issues. Even white workers feel deep alienation, lack of control over the political and economic process, regimentation of life, fear over the destruction of the environment, etc. Exceptional whites need to try to mobilize around these and link them up to the liberation struggle. These kinds of issues without the “bread and butter” aspect won’t be a basis for revolution - at least I don’t think so. However, they can be some basis for solidarity.
Redstar raises an excellent question: Would the deliberate creation of a "mythology" of anti-racist white working class struggle be a "useful tool" in winning white workers to communism? How "mythological" would it have to be?
Well, on this, I’d say that the white working class is basically a labor aristocracy that isn’t going to be won to communism no matter what mythology you put out. However, I do think that revolutionary mythology can help win exceptional whites over. I think this is happening all the time in many ways. But, why does the revolutionary mythology have to be about a mythological working class? The mythology does have to take the form of some revolutionary imagined community that can inspire loyalty, dedication, no compromise, sacrifice. But this imagined community need not be the white working class. If it does take the form of mythologizing about some none existent white working class, then that is only a hold over from past. I have heard exceptional whites espouse all kinds of mythologies about belonging to revolutionary community of anarchist tribes or tazs or whatever. I have even heard them claim to be the vanguard of the worldwide proletariat. I think more and more that workerist mythology is becoming meaningless to white movement. Vulgar and economist Leninisms are rejected for less dated, less constricting anarchist and Marxist theories. The myth of the revolutionary white working class is openly rejected in significant parts of the anarchist and radical environmental movement. I think this is exactly what you would expect Gilbert was right.
roman viva el che
|
|
Leo
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by Leo on Jan 24, 2004 15:00:11 GMT -5
The only true revolutionary class is the proletariat,all the other classes(except bourgeoise) can dissapear with the development of the big industry.If the so called white working class isnt revolutionary then what is it ? Labour Aristocracy ?
What I think is that all the similar with MIM voices forget how exploitative and opressive capitalism is and try to persuade us that all the workers in imperialist countries want this system for some very big,according to MIM,benefits they have.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jan 24, 2004 20:55:59 GMT -5
romanmeal wrote: I think Gilbert is almost entirely correct. There isn’t a white working class in any revolutionary-politically meaningful sense. Does this mean that there will be no white resistance and solidarity with the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle? Of course not. It just means that class isn’t going to be the main basis of that solidarity.
If we dismiss class as the significant factor among white workers, what's left?
Why should "Jimmie the plumber" give a rat's ass for "the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle" (unless they try to draft his kid)?
As long as there's "cheap gas" for his truck, why should he care about Iraq?
Or take "Dilbert" (the Scott Adams cartoon character). He's got a pretty decent job in silicon valley...full of daily frustrations and humiliations, but he never worries about making his rent. I've actually known "Dilberts", a few of whom do express revolutionary sentiments. Oddly enough, they do talk almost entirely in terms of class...their own. They see "technical workers" as a class that ought to be "for itself".
Then there are the very "lowest" parts of the white working class--or "white underclass" as the bourgeois media refers to them. At this point they seem to be almost entirely motivated by religious, ethnic, and patriotic sentiments of the most reactionary character.
Will that always be the case?
And if class has no relevance to them, what will?
romanmeal wrote: There are all kinds of contradictions within the oppressor nation that exceptional whites can use to the advantage of the imperialized and captive nations. And, it is their duty to carry out tasks to aid the oppressed nations - if possible, under the leadership of vanguard organizations (I don’t necessarily mean Leninist vanguard). The specifics of "what to do" is going to vary greatly depending on where you are.
This sounds suspiciously like "support groups"...consisting, of course, of groupies.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
romanmeal wrote: Like a labor aristocracy, it is a dead end to try to mobilize the so called white working class to the revolution on the basis of class - "bread and butter" issues. Why? Because the oppressor nation working class benefits as imperialism benefits.
Well, if a high-paid manufacturing worker loses his job because the factory moved to the Philippines and has to take a shitty job at Wal-Mart, is he still "benefiting" from the successes of imperialism?
romanmeal wrote: Well, on this, I’d say that the white working class is basically a labor aristocracy that isn’t going to be won to communism no matter what mythology you put out. However, I do think that revolutionary mythology can help win exceptional whites over. I think this is happening all the time in many ways. But, why does the revolutionary mythology have to be about a mythological working class? The mythology does have to take the form of some revolutionary imagined community that can inspire loyalty, dedication, no compromise, sacrifice. But this imagined community need not be the white working class. If it does take the form of mythologizing about some none existent white working class, then that is only a hold over from past.
I see your point. The thing is...I detest mythologies of any kind.
Since you agree with Gilbert--the white working class is "not going to be won to communism" no matter what--then I'm glad I'm not faced with the problem of the "noble lie".
I'll tell them the truth and they will ignore me...but, at least I get to tell them the truth.
As to "new mythologies" that will attract "exceptional whites"...I can only shake my head in despair. I can't see anything good resulting from such an approach.
romanmeal wrote: The myth of the revolutionary white working class is openly rejected in significant parts of the anarchist and radical environmental movement. I think this is exactly what you would expect [if] Gilbert was right.
Or perhaps it's a transient expression of despair typical in periods of reaction.
And there are some anarchists--the "platformists"--who take the white working class very seriously.
See, I'm willing to concede that Gilbert could be right. But if he is right, then guys like me (white workers) may as well just throw in the towel. I can't see myself cheer-leading other folks' revolutions and then begging for favors after they win.
It would be a "better the devil I know" kind of choice...one that I really don't want to be faced with.
If it happens that way, then it happens and I will have to deal with that. But the option of "helping" to make it happen that way is very unappealing.
|
|
|
Post by honky talk on Jan 25, 2004 18:38:26 GMT -5
the line of Gilbert and Sakai is basically wrong.
They often make many true observations of the history of the U.S. and the current politics -- but draw wrong conclusions.
1) it is true that white workers have often done reactionary and racist things. Many unions were founded to prevent black people from getting jobs. There have long been "white riots" aimed at black people (Tulsa, Detroit 1943, civil war new york etc.)
And it is interesting when Sakai documents that. But he also leaves out the other side: white workers enlisting in thousands to fight slavery, often with abolitionist views. Support among white workers for equal rights in the 60s. The fact that after the LA rebellion even the system's polls thought a majority of people (!!) supported the uprising. etc. etc. There is a whole other side that gets "whitewashed out" of history, because it doesn't match Sakai's nationalist, pessimistic and anti-white assumptions.
2) This approach takes the CURRENT level of politics and assumes it won't change. Are most white workers backeward now? sure. Is there heavy influence of bourgeois politics? sure. But this is how things are in times where there isn't political crisis, powerful radical movements, and sharp struggle in society.
In a future crisis, many things can and will change.
Many deeply mistaken assertions in political life start with the phrase "if current trends continue." And (as a dialectitian) i see and assume that very very often current trends DON'T continue. Politics and life often has sudden leaps, unexpected changes, and the explosion of new movements (seemingly out of "nowhere.")
Assuming that white workers will always think what they think today is fundamentally mistaken. And if you apply that logic and method to the world as a whole, you will quickly assume that revouotion, socialism and communism are themselves impossible. And not just here but everywhere.
3) it is a method that looks at "current attitudes" not underlying interests. To understand the POTENTIAL of various class forces you have to look at their objective situation in society (and how crisis can fuck them over) -- not just what they think now.
white workers are heavily oppressed in many ways -- certainly major chunks of them. Go into the bottom of any industry, into janitorial, or the coal mines, or the unemplyment lines, or welfare -- and you will see lots of white proletarians (along side the Black and Latino).
So the idea that all white workers are privileged (in some fundamental, bought-off, aristocratic way) is just wrong.
There are bought off people in the working class -- but not a majority.
4) No one romanticizes the white workers. No one knows now how many will "come over." No one insists they already know how it will unfold. Manythings simply can't be known -- and many things defend on how revolutionary crises develop.
I don't know what chunk of white workers will come over in a crisis. And neither do you.
But i do know this: those who claim that they ALREADY KNOW that white workers are fundamentally a single bloc, and that bloc is fundamentally reactionary -- those people are making a deeply mistaken analysis based on deeply mistaken reading of both history and current class alighments.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Jan 25, 2004 18:43:19 GMT -5
here is another example:
part of the Sakai thesis is basically "white workers are pressed between velvet sheets."
Puerto rican workers get shot (this analysis goes) but white workers dont. etc.
But that is only true if you ignore those times that white workers got shot.
Sakai gave the example of FDR shooting puertorican workers. OK. But he also nationalized the U.S. coal mines and sent soldiers against the (overwhelmingly) white coal miners.
White workers were shot in the republic steel strike. In the Vietnam War, the government shot white Kent state students (and also many black people, including Jackson state students.)
This is a racist country. White people are not treated as badly as Black people. There is no disagreement there. But it is wrong, and ahistorical to assume that white people cannot be oppressed, repressed or exploited. You have to tear lots of pages out of history to make that case.
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Jan 26, 2004 15:34:45 GMT -5
Redstar wrote: If we dismiss class as the significant factor among white workers, what's left? Why should "Jimmie the plumber" give a rat's ass for "the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle" (unless they try to draft his kid)? As long as there's "cheap gas" for his truck, why should he care about Iraq?
Well, generally, I think don’t think he will give at rat’s ass about the liberation in Iraq, Nepal, Columbia or anywhere else. He might become a bit isolationist if empire becomes extended beyond its means and they re-institute the draft, or levy more taxes, or whatever. His class benefits from empire and at some level he probably knows this. But, fundamentally, his class may become somewhat anti-war, but that is a long way from solidarity and an even longer way from revolution.
Now, as an individual, as an exceptional white, all kinds of things can influence him to become “radicalized”. I once met an older white obviously upper middle class woman at a protest. I thought “what the hell” and gave her some revolutionary literature. Two months later, I was completely surprised when she asked me for another newsletter. She said she had seen nothing like it and thought it was great stuff. So, we got to talking. It turns out that her son had died in Vietnam and she blamed American imperial arrogance, not the Vietnamese. Anyway, she gave me some food to take home. Nice person. A few years earlier, I met a younger white college student at an October 22nd march. She didn’t really fit in with the other marchers who were mostly Mexican, African, and a few white anarchists. I was a bit curious why she was there. She told me she was at a college house party one night and the police shut it down, went nuts, pepper sprayed people, and hit her down with batons. She told me she gets paranoid, “every time I see a cop”. So these kinds of things happen and can have a deep effect on white people. But besides these kinds of individual radicalizations, you have a certain percentage of intellectuals, students, artists, etc who have come some kind of anti-imperial solidarity outlook, or even, revolutionary outlook. Maybe it is hip to be somewhat radical or whatever. Culture and familial ties can also play a factor. Many Irish Americans, even those who are very affluent, have familial and cultural ties to the Irish freedom struggle. The point is that these people aren’t being radicalized as a class.
Redstar says: “Or take "Dilbert" (the Scott Adams cartoon character). He's got a pretty decent job in silicon valley...full of daily frustrations and humiliations, but he never worries about making his rent. I've actually known "Dilberts", a few of whom do express revolutionary sentiments. Oddly enough, they do talk almost entirely in terms of class...their own. They see "technical workers" as a class that ought to be "for itself".”
Well, this is a good illustration of what I am getting at. Dilbert might hate his daily alienating job, mechanized routine, dead end job, his boss, daily humiliations, etc. He might even become somewhat class conscious in thinking of himself as an “oppressed lower management guy” or “technical worker“. Even beat cops probably get pissed at their bosses - “the suits” and “desk jockeys”.
There are lots of things to say here. A lot of the Dilbert-classes are parasitic and dependent as a class on imperial relations. A lot of these guys are involved in doing unproductive parasitic labor. They are in the business of managing and building the information technology for managing empire. They do grunt work, but it is not productive proletarian grunt work. Much of the Dilbert class becomes unnecessary under revolutionary socialism. So, although they may have some kind of class outlook and conflicts, ultimately we are talking about contradictions within the oppressor nation or contradictions within the ruling classes.
But even in that part of the Dilbert class which is genuinely productive intellectual or technical labor, we still have to ask if this white intellectual-work-proletarian will be able to reach a point of solidarity with the imperialized and captive peasant, worker, and indigenous stuggles. In this forum, we aren’t going to be able reach a quantifiable result that will prove or disprove “is Dilbert’s oppression offset by the benefits he receives as a member of an oppressor nation?”. MIM actually seems to want quantify some of this kind of stuff in terms of global surplus value. But, as I know you are aware (from your posts on Che-lives) the whole notion of surplus value and the labor theory of value is highly problematic. Well, trying to quantify “daily humiliations”, “alienation”, etc is even more difficult, if not impossible ( I actually think you can quantify this stuff to some degree). So, a lot of how we come down on this debate is going to be shaped by our personal experiences, sense of things, intuitions. But, I think Sakai’s work is important, because it documents the history of white working class as a settler proletariat. It documents how historically the white working class even when it sought to improve its lot vis a vis the white capitalists, the white working class has consolidated its position at the expense of captive nations and the imperialized. I think Sakai and Gilbert are right in challenging the economist “it all comes down to class” Marxism. I think we have to honestly and really have to look at oppressed/oppressor nation dynamic, even if it requires us to radically rewrite Marxism. I also happen to feel this way about our analysis of patriarchy.
Redstar: “This sounds suspiciously like "support groups"...consisting, of course, of groupies. Please correct me if I am mistaken.”
Well, maybe it is - in part. I don’t think even all exceptional whites will be able to work within the vanguard anti-imperialist struggle. The exceptional people will be torn and they will try to carry out struggle within their own communities. And, this is fine. I think that in general though, they should always defend the anti-imperialist and captive nation struggles. They need to defend “unpopular” groups like the Panthers, Puerto Rican, Indigenous, and Mexican liberation struggles. This means really rejecting imperialist borders - not just saying “when the multinational (mostly white) proletariat in the USA has a revolution, then captive peoples can choose autonomy”.
Redstar says: Well, if a high-paid manufacturing worker loses his job because the factory moved to the Philippines and has to take a shitty job at Wal-Mart, is he still "benefiting" from the successes of imperialism?
There are ups and downs in the domestic situation in the oppressor nation - no doubt. Just as ruling classes are not simple homogenous blocks, neither are oppressor nations. And, there are some who get downsized or become jobless or fall below the poverty line or whatever. More often than not, for the white working class these down turns tend to be more temporary than with captive nation workers. And, after 6 months, whites tend to have moved out of poverty. The situation is a lot different for the true underclass. MIM posted some interesting statistics about this on another forum. I’ll try to find them and repost them. In any case, the question is when these downturns happen, does the settler proletariat say “I have lost my job to a brother Mexican” or does he say “Fucking Wetbacks will work for nothing.. We need to keep them out!.. Let’s build a wall between us and them! ” There are always exceptional white workers who aren’t moved toward fascism, but as a group, their oppressor nation identity wins out. And it makes sense that it would, considering the huge benefits American workers receive from imperialism in terms of consumer goods and everything else. Like I said, the white working class has a lot more to lose than his chains. Sakai documents a lot of this long history of the settler proletariat even when in conflict with its own capitalists is still in as much conflict, actually more conflict, with the captive nation peoples.
Redstar says: I'll tell them the truth and they will ignore me...but, at least I get to tell them the truth. As to "new mythologies" that will attract "exceptional whites"...I can only shake my head in despair. I can't see anything good resulting from such an approach.
Well, as far as the white working class goes, since the revolution is so distant from them. I have a “whatever works” attitude. The white working class won’t be revolutionary until there are radical changes in the world and reversals for empire. Of course, I would prefer exceptional whites pick ideologies that fit with my own. But I think if they do take a real look at the world through Marxism, they will come to conclusions like my mine. And, they will orient themselves away from the settler proletariat toward the real revolutionary forces.
roman viva el che
|
|
|
Post by little bit o che on Jan 26, 2004 16:31:01 GMT -5
Honky Talk is right, historically the white settler worker has fought with its own capitalists - somethimes vilently. Not sure the point here. Like you say at the end of your first post, the oppressor nation is not one big homogenous block. There are contradictions within it. It is simplistic to say “whites have suffered too. So, Sakai-Gilbert are wrong.” If you read the full articles, Gilbert actually makes a criticism along the lines Sakai is one sided but still mostly right.
Honky: This approach takes the CURRENT level of politics and assumes it won't change. Are most white workers backeward now? sure. Is there heavy influence of bourgeois politics? sure. But this is how things are in times where there isn't political crisis, powerful radical movements, and sharp struggle in society.
“Whites are backwards now, so they always have been and always will be” - I don't get this from the articles. In fact, the articles seem to suggest that things are dynamic and do change, just not always for the better. And a big change happened post ww2 with the development of the modern American Empire: “Those expansionist years of 1945-1965... saw the final promotion of the white proletariat. This was an en masse promotion so profound that it eliminated not only consciousness, but the class itself.” Later, Gilbert talks of other changes. Not sure what you mean. I didn't see them making that argument at all.
Honky: 3) it is a method that looks at "current attitudes" not underlying interests. To understand the POTENTIAL of various class forces you have to look at their objective situation in society (and how crisis can fuck them over) -- not just what they think now.
Repeating something a second time doesn’t make it any more true. The articles do talk about underlying interests. The whole point is that oppressor nation interests can and has been more important than class interest for the white working class. I am not sure why you got that impression. The Gilbert article talked about the possibility of change and current attitudes toward the end, but mostly in a positive way. I don't know why you think the form of the argument is "current attitudes bad. therefore always wil be bad":
Gilbert talks about crisis and change:
"1) a deeper crisis in imperialism where it has less cushion from which to offer reforms, 2) a situation where revolutionary alternatives are strong enough to be tangible, 3) a political leadership that pushes these movements to ally with national liberation, .."
GILBERT more on current stuff: We would argue that the women’s movement and the social movements, to be revolutionary, must relate to racism, national liberation, and Third World leadership. But we should add that, as with the youth movement, each should be looking for ways to extend its base into the working class on an anti-racist and pro-women’s liberation basis.
“The Lesbian-Gay-AIDS movement has been of particular urgency, militancy and importance in this period. The struggle around AIDS has pushed the radical sector toward the need to ally with Third World and poor white communities impacted by intravenous drugs and poor health care. The AIDS movement has also provided leadership in breaking through the sterile conservative (cut back services to the poor) versus liberal (defend state bureaucracy) definition of political debate. ACT-UP and others have provided an excellent example of mobilization and empowerment from below for self-help while at the same time demanding a redistribution of social resources to meet these social needs.
Peace, ecology, the homeless, health care, education all speak to important pieces that express the inhumanity and ineffectiveness of the whole system. Of course these movements have been, almost by definition, reformist. But that doesn’t mean that they have to be under all circumstances: e.g., 1) a deeper crisis in imperialism where it has less cushion from which to offer reforms, 2) a situation where revolutionary alternatives are strong enough to be tangible, 3) a political leadership that pushes these movements to ally with national liberation, promote women’s liberation, and deepen their class base, while at the same time drawing out the connections among the different social movements into a more coherent and overall critique of the whole system. Under such circumstances and leadership, the social movements could not only involve far more white working class people in anti-systemic struggles, but would also serve to redefine and revitalize class issues and class struggle itself.” [end gilbert qoute]
Again, it seems to me he isn’t saying that whites can’t be mobilized at all or that they are backward or something. I’m not sure where you are getting a lot of this. But, he just doesn’t think CLASS is going to be the point of connection for solidarity or mobilization.
More Gilbert: What is certain is that there will be changes, and, at points, crises. We can’t afford to repeat the old errors of once again floundering on the dilemma of either “joining” the working class’ white supremacy or of abandoning our responsibility to organize a broader movement. While there is no blueprint, the basis for a real starting point is an analysis of actual historical experience.
In sum, revolutionaries must be realistic about the history of white supremacy, the impact of material wealth and dominance, and the mushrooming of job and status differentials among workers, both nationally and internationally. There is nothing approximating the Marxist revolutionary proletariat within white America. At the same time, the distinction between those who control the means of production and those who live by the sale of labor power has not been completely obliterated.
A system of white supremacy that was historically constructed can be historically deconstructed. A key factor for whites is the tangibility of a revolutionary alternative as opposed to the more immediate relative privileges that imperialism has had to offer. In this regard we have no map of what the future will bring. The experience of the 60’s does offer some possible lessons for when the system is under stress. 1) Anti-imperialist politics are more important than initial class composition. 2) Culture, especially with ties to Third World people, can be an important force for building progressive cross-class movements. 3) In seeking to extend such movements, revolutionaries should look for intersection points of white working class interests with the advance of national liberation, such as the draft. 4) Women’s liberation must play a central role in all movements we build. 5) The various social movements, if we can fight for an alliance with the national liberation and the presence of women’s politics and leadership, can be important arenas for extending base to include working class people, mutually redefine class and social issues, and make the connections to an overall anti-systemic perspective."
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 17, 2004 22:30:14 GMT -5
roman meal wrote: But, I think Sakai’s work is important, because it documents the history of white working class as a settler proletariat.
Emphasis added.
I went to google this morning and looked up some things by and about Sakai. While I was reading, it suddenly hit me.
All the "settlers" are dead.
The "great wave" of European immigration ended in 1921 or thereabout. So every white worker who came here with a "settler mentality" is either approaching the century mark or is dead.
Of course, cultural artifacts outlive their creators...sometimes for a considerable period of time. But the material basis for a "settler mentality" ended some time ago.
Even if Sakai/Gilbert were "indisputably" right about American history...their analysis would be increasingly irrelevant as time passed and the "settler mentality" faded from public consciousness.
I have no doubt that there are and will be capitalist ideologues who will try to revive, from time to time, the "settler mythology" for political purposes...but it seems to me that such attempts would fail -- "it doesn't make sense any more".
Anti-immigrant ideology can, perhaps, be seen as the "senile" form of the "settler mentality"...the "last hurrah" of what was once an important part of the "American civil religion".
But who watches "westerns" any more?
|
|
|
Post by roman on Feb 18, 2004 4:07:19 GMT -5
Who watches westerns? Probably the same people who want to build a wall and use the military to keep Mexicans out. Well, 15 years ago Reagan was president. And, I’d bet Pat Buchanan, Bill O’Reily, Ross Parrot, Jeb and GW, Pat Robertson.. I bet Rush Limbaugh even watches them when he isn’t nodding out to Xanadu. The whole “settler hero” is still very much a part of the American culture. The Marlboro Man comes to mind. As interesting as this is, this really isn’t what Sakai means by Settlerism. Sakai reserves the term for concrete kinds of national formations that have their origins in garrisoned colonies: USA, South Africa, Zionist Israel, N. Ireland, etc. Although there is obviously an ideological side to this, it isn’t the main thing.
I really think people need to read Settlers, to get a full sense of it. It is one of my favorite books. There is some decent material online about it, "When Race Burns Class" interview and the Gilbert and Kuwasi Balagoon reviews. But, none of these do the book justice. The book is a bit hard to find it might be available through Solidarity/Arm the Spirit. From the inside jacket: Cooperative Distribution Service, Rm 1409-93, 5 N. Wabash Ave, Chicago, Il 60602... Single copies are 8.95$, postage and handling included. Price for Prisoners 2$. Bulk orders of 10 or more copies 50% discount. Payment must accompany all orders. Orders without full payment can't be filled. I would double check this address, my book is old. Or call Illinois information and get their phone number. Or, try Amazon..
Redstar says: Anti-immigrant ideology can, perhaps, be seen as the "senile" form of the "settler mentality"...the "last hurrah" of what was once an important part of the "American civil religion".
Well, there is a view that capitalism is ultimately progressive, coldly rational, against superstition, bigotry, etc. This the way Marx portrays capitalism in the Manifesto. One version of this view says that racism is somehow a pre-capitalist hang up. So, as time goes on, racism will go away and capitalism will oppress all workers equally.
There is another view, a more likely view, summed up by Marcuse: democracy is when the ruling class is not afraid, fascism when they are. The suggestion here is that Capitalism has a two faced nature. It is rational, scientific, anti-religious, etc. Yet, when it needs to it can bring all kinds of “pre-capitalist” barbarity to suffer on the oppressed classes.
Then there is the even more likely view, that genocide and racism are pretty much business as usual for an capitalist oppressor nations. Racism is not a hold over from pre-capitalism or whatever. It is an integral part of the system to justify its predatory and parasitic nature.
I don’t think you have to look to far to see how alive racism and settlerism is in the USA. I am not sure why I am repeating this because it is so obvious. But, look at the percentage of African males in prison or in the justice system - under state supervision. Look at how the genocidal intelligence services flooded the ghettos with cocaine, heroin, and even marijuana. Look at how as late as a half century ago the state was sterilizing African, Puerto Rican, Indian, Mexican, and Hawaiian women as part of eugenics programs disguised as social services (I refer you to Edwin Black’s _War Against the Weak_). M. Sanger sold abortion and contraception as a way to lower population of the “inferior races” (note: I support abortion, just bring up a historical fact). Look at the world war 2 history of depopulation of Mexicans, Chinese, and Japanese. During the depression many millions of Mexicans (many with American citizenship) were depopulated to Mexico. This is going on and on and on. Especially with Mexico. The USA is fighting a battle against ancient demographic patterns - and losing. This is all old hat for Pat. Pat Buchanan has nightmares about barbarians at the gates, the re-conquering of occupied Mexico, and the downfall of the white civilization.
I think Sakai would say that Settlerism is very alive today and is perpetuated by imperialism, higher standards of living for white labor aristocratic workers, identity with the oppressor nation, etc. It’s alive in the fascist behavior of the white working class.. Closed borders (to Mexicans) is probably the biggest populist issue right now.
**On a side note: Sakai seems to think that racism as we know it is very modern and very much tied up with capitalism, imperialism, and settlerism. Sakai makes a distinction between various ethnic bigotry against the jews or romani in medieval Europe and the very modern racism, often associated with skin color, that was put to the service of genocide and chattel slavery in the Americas.
|
|