White privilege

132 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fuego Revolucinario
Offline
Joined: 1-11-06
Nov 13 2006 08:34
Quote:
Ah, but there's the thing. Class and race are intertwined in the US, in a way that they aren't in the UK, which makes this debate a lot more complicated.

If you are suggesting that white privilege does not exist in the UK simply because it differs in character than that in the US, then I do not think you fully understand the dynamics of either. Aside from my own personal observation, I also know people personally affected by it on a day to day basis here in the UK. There's been enough literature on it also if those in denial want to get more informed. It may be different in superficial ways, but the dynamic is exactly the same, as it is created and encouraged by the same economic system.

White priviledge isn't just persistent throughout British history - it was also one of it's most sucessful exports. From the colonies, to Australia, New Zealand, and the list goes on......

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 13 2006 08:57
redtwister wrote:

Please understand before I say this, that you really never motivate this feeling in me and this is very exceptional. Having said that, fuck you for being a sanctimonious cunt.

grin

OK I'll admit to not having read your article yet, I'll come back to this after that.

Quote:
Catch, if you can't tel the difference between struggle against racism and the social recuperation of the struggles against racism in the 1960s and 70's, how is that my fucking problem? Are you trying to look stupid? Why do you feel the need to insult my intelligence?

You mean you can't tell the difference between the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and anything with the fucking word "empowerment" in it? And you want to blame your ignorance on me?

No thank you. Keep that kind of nonsense to yourself. It is embarrassing.

Chris

No I can tell the difference. But certainly in the UK, nearly all of what we have is liberal anti-racism (I dunno if that means vast amounts in the US) - in other words identity politics. I'm not aware of any equivalent groups to the League of Revolutionary Black Workers in the UK in my lifetime (would love to be proved wrong), however there's loads of groups which exist only to promote (their own personal) representation in the business and state hierarchies. Black (or Asian - meaning South Asian) business and managers networks, Operation Black Vote, the SWP's RESPECT Coalition - nearly all the recent discourse around race is along those representational cross-class (or more usually specifically middle class) lines. You also have New Labour MPs calling for segregated schooling for Black pupils because "white teachers are racist" (yes, all of them), and general state support for segregated education through "parental choice", city academies and foundation schools. And the police and other public bodies consistently working with self-appointed "community leaders" (usually religious) to mediate around stuff like anti-terror raids.

I think concepts like "white skin privilege" dovetail with these kinds of organisations pretty well. I'm not saying your personal views on it do, but the concept in general does.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 15 2006 21:21
madashell wrote:
Garner wrote:
What kind of nationalism would that be then?

Anti-Americanism is nationaist by it's very nature.

On this we completely agree. Anti-Americanism is a whole different ball game from being an internationalist.

Chris

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 15 2006 22:21
revol68 wrote:
So basically I'm in agreement with your conclusion but I find "theories" of white previlege fundamentally futile in as much as they either create self fufilling prophecies, ape liberal anti racism, inspire volutaneerist white guilt which is the modern liberals white man's burden. Your argument is that we shouldn't pretend that we are all eqaully oppressed, and I don't think you'll find one person arguing with this. You then give a dozen examples of how white workers gain through racism, yet these gains are premised on identifying as a cracka than as a worker, that the previleges are only previleges if one renounces their hostility to their own oppression, that when one maintains a hostility to capitalism and the state as a whole, these previleges don't soo much disappear as show themselves for what they are, bigger cages and longer chains.

A few points, as we are pretty close.

1) I am not defending white skin privilege theory in its totality, nor would I describe my understanding of race in those terms. If for no other reason than referring to it as "white skin" privilege re-biologizes race and that it tends on one side to liberal guilt and on the other to black nationalism.

2) However, the simple fact is that so-called "white workers" sacrifice class unity in the name of being white too often for many black workers to feel that they have any basis of trust and this is still true today. Believe me, there is no mistake that Bush's blue collar supporters are dangerous and anti-black among 95% of black people. And Bush's base is very white. People who would have been militant fighters in the 1960's in places like West Virginia, Illinois, etc.

3) This argument against privilege is an odd one to me. I have never argued that white supremacy was not largely reduction of exploitation and oppression. I have simply argued that it also includes material benefits, i.e. privileges, which were acessible based on being socialized as white (something which happens objectively, and therefore race has both a subjective and objective dimension).

Now the argument is that better wages, less work, more interesting work, the vastly increased chance of escaping from the working class, owning property, becoming a landlord or independent business owner, marrying the boss' children, etc. are not material benefits. I find this odd. Indeed, one can construe the ones that happen without alleviating workers of their class position as "reduction" rather than benefit, but given that getting out of the working class, becoming a petty or medium or large exploiter was reserved almost entirely for those racialized as white and promised as a benefit for white workers (and given out often enough to make it a possibility), I do not see how reduction or unequal distribution of oppression and exploitation applies.

Unless of course one holds to the two classes theory, in which case professors, professionals, small business owners, executives, management, cops, anyone on this side of say Donald Trump (let's be fair, post-bankruptcy) is a worker. Then of course, going to Harvard is not a privilege, it is preparing to be a slightly less exploited worker unless one become Bill Gates or Michael Dell or Michael Milliken or some such. And there really is no getting out of the working class.

But I hold that this two-class stuff is nonsense, that the relation of capital and labor generates multiple constituted classes and a multitude of mediated positions (workers who own small businesses, for example.) And therefore, there is genuine privilege.

Also, madashell argued quite directly that patriarchy includes genuine privileges, but racism does not. Where you might have a shred of consistency revol, madashell did not the moment he made that move. And that is what really ticked me off, btw.

4) What has changed since the 1970's is that the barriers are no longer impermeable. It is more possible to be black and get out. Still much, much harder, but pre-1970's in the U.S., it was well nigh impossible. The barriers to the middle classes, with the exception of businesses serving "blacks-only" and entertainers, were impenetrable for black workers. This is no longer the case. Much of what made Sojourner Truth and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers' analysis true in 1970 does not necessarily apply today.

Race and race power are not static. That is why I have qualified all of my statements with this historical awareness of change. it is also what differentiates my position from "white skin privilege", which in 1965 was revolutionary and the product of communists, and today is acceptable as the ideology of middle class kids on guilt trips and black (esp nationalist, but also other) activists who find is a useful way to keep radical politics from affecting their hold in a black population where the political vacuum is monstrous and makes an audible sucking sound.

5) If you want to be picky, I would have to say that I view race, gender, imperial supremacy, etc. as not so much privilege as "the promise of privilege realized often enough to make it something that might be achieved thereby granting to some workers in the group defined as oppressor i.e. white, U.S.-European-Japanese, male, whatever, genuine material benefits, even while it allows capital to maintain and overall higher degree of exploitation for the class as a whole, but with a definite and observably worse level of exploitation and oppression for those specially targeted by capital, i.e. blacks, aborigines, women, most people in the so-called third world, etc."

And I would and do emphasize that the only way out is class solidarity, but, and this is the rub:

- if you go and tell the oppressed they need to unite with the workers who identify themselves as superior/oppressors, they will with very good reason to ask you to go get yourself killed on your own nickle. Not that they wouldn't like a little solidarity, but they'll believe it when they see it. Or maybe you will get the "Fuck whitey" separatist/nationalist speech.

- if you go and tell the oppressors/superior identified workers to identify with and unite in struggle with the specially oppressed, they will tell you 1) they, the (white, male, native-born, etc.) are the ones oppressed by the lazy (insert racist, sexist, anti-gay, nativist explicative here), 2) that this talk of oppression is liberal or communist bulshit 3) that those people are not dependable, reliable, law-abiding workers 4) that they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps 4a) preferably back where they come from 5) fuck you, i have a nice life in the suburbs and if they just did what my grandparents did, shut up and work hard and stick together, then they would live in the suburbs, send their kids to university, and have family in management, as professionals, as cops, etc., too.

So while in most cases, racism is less about actual privilege than it used to be, it confers what to the oppressed appears very much to be privilege and what to the privileged appears to be the natural, just deserts of their superiority (cultural, ethical, natural/biological), the loss of which they largely blame on the oppressed because they themselves implicitly recognize them as privileges. But explicitly, to call these privileges makes whites, Americans, men, etc. soooooooooo angry, that frankly the first thing i see on a list like this is something akin to Holocaust Deniers, because that is how it works in daily life and I think most leftists are more submissive than they ever imagine, esp on race, sex, and sexuality.

So what to make of this real set of divisions?

Class unity is both made difficult and at the same time the only cure. The need for unified struggle can break this cycle, but this organization of labor can also break attempts to regenerate the class struggle. That is why I insist that from the point of the oppressors, trust only comes when we openly acknowledge that black workers for example have been on an even shittier end of the stick, that black workers don't just get attacked as workers, but as black and that being white exempts us from a lot of shit, but that as workers, we have a lot of common ground.

The difficulty even with this is that in the US class appears in and through race, gender, sexuality, etc. It doesn't appear directly as class. So working class in the US is "blue collar", which is white, Southern, redneck, Christian, law-abiding, NASCAR-watching, etc. But esp white. Blue-collar has always been, at least among most whites, meant white men because black people "don't work", what women do is housework, not "real" work, etc.

I find it hard to simply separate this in practice even though in most cases your separation of differential degrees of oppression/exploitation and actual privilege is formally, logically correct, because it has no purchase in actuality except to apologize for white workers feeling that it is blacks who are on about race all the time, men feeling that it is women who always harp on gender, etc...

Again, I am not talking for England, or Ireland, or France or Germany. I am speaking from my experience of race in capitalist society in what is no doubt one of the most racist, reactionary countries on the planet.

Chris

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 15 2006 23:20
redtwister wrote:
Also, madashell argued quite directly that patriarchy includes genuine privileges, but racism does not. Where you might have a shred of consistency revol, madashell did not the moment he made that move. And that is what really ticked me off, btw.

Would you care to say why you think the two positions are inconsistant?

Or would you prefer to continue being randomly abusive?

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 20 2006 23:29
madashell wrote:
redtwister wrote:
Also, madashell argued quite directly that patriarchy includes genuine privileges, but racism does not. Where you might have a shred of consistency revol, madashell did not the moment he made that move. And that is what really ticked me off, btw.

Would you care to say why you think the two positions are inconsistant?

Or would you prefer to continue being randomly abusive?

I would prefer that you try to prove that concept. You did not.

There was no randomness in the abuse, btw.

I do however wonder what the relationship would be towards this and say unions. In the past, i have found a high level of support for unions linked with a deep hostility to the idea that white is a social condition conferring material privileges. In my experience in the US, unionists often tried ot play down any differences that obstructed economic solidarity, even though white racism did in fact always obstruct economic solidarity. It generally amounted to nothing more than a demand that the union attend only to demands that did not threaten intra-class hierarchies, esp those of race, sex and nativism.

Certainly, the unions have been a huge booster of nationalism in the US, a banner of racial and gender oppression, and even the CIO, which was on paper much better than the AF of L and the other non-radical unions, worked with the KKK to crush the generally very integrated and militant communist party unions in the late 1940's. And it was against the AFL-CIO that the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and the RUMs and the wildcats revolted in the 1960's.

But that is taking this in another direction.

I think first I want to see a rational argument for stating that sexism entails male privilege but racism does not entail white privilege (in a context where the oppressor is white, which is not all context, as in Japan, for example.)

Chris

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Nov 21 2006 00:02
Quote:
I think first I want to see a rational argument for stating that sexism entails male privilege but racism does not entail white privilege (in a context where the oppressor is white, which is not all context, as in Japan, for example.)

Briefly:

While you're mostly right on that, it seems a bit superficial to compare one which has at least the pretence of a justifiable biological definition and somewhat stable categories, while the other is based entirely on how the ruling class defines "white". For instance these days Jews, Italians, etc. are basically identified as "white", and there are political-economical reasons for why that came to be, but there was certainly a lot of racism towards both groups when what mattered was what kind of "white" you were. Similarly black people in south central LA certainly felt a lot of enmity towards Korean shop owners, and the way that racism played out in that context very much promoted "Korean privilege" (such as the shop owner being aquitted for shooting a shoplifter).

On the other hand the categories which sexism employs have been relatively stable the last few centuries, even if the role that each is expected to play have changed.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 21 2006 00:37
revol68 wrote:
But the problem is that to me what's being argued here is that white workers have a previlege in so much as they have a greater oppurtunity to become middle class, so essentially it's not white working class previlege but rather middle class previlege which you have more chance of enjoying if your white.

That is odd reasoning Revol. My argument was clearly that whiteness seeks to provide a cross-class identity for all those racialized as white. It provided that access to escaping the working class was guarded by a racial litmus test, and that access to bourgeois right (free press, equal protection under the law, free speech, free assmebly, etc.) is racially determined as well as class determined. This means, and i have been explicit about this, that as long as whites who are sociologically working class do not engage in class struggles or only engage in those struggles to enforce social divisions (like strikes to keep black or immigrant or women workers from getting hired or promoted, for example), they are not much of a problem for capital and in fact they materially and practically hinder any kind of class solidarity. Struggles to protect the benefits, material and psychological, that accrue from being white are either supported or treated completely differently.

As such, whiteness is absolutely middle class. A large portion of the ideology of the middle class American survives because of racism. Of course it serves to convey the ideology of class mobility because it entails, to a much smaller degree than it promises, real class mobility that black and Native Americans are generally denied because of race. EVERYONE is denied it because of class, but being black or Native American adds additional layers of oppression, being white opens up otherwise non-existent pathways.

What made you think i thought white supremacism was working class? I have only discussed its perniscious influence in the working class, its main target audience, the people it needs to get buy in from, but the leadership of a white politics can only be bourgeois and petty bourgeois. Indpendent class politics is annihilated by white supremacism, in a way it simply is not with black workers. there could be no League of Revolutionary White Workers, there never will be. Sojourner Truth kind of tried and ended up with the miserable shit of Race Traitor in the end. If anything, ST reified race and that was one of their biggest weaknesses.

Quote:
Also since we are talking historically I think we can see that the old Unionised blue collar industrial base that allowed so many white working class people to aspire to "middle class" lifestyles eg house in suburbs etc, has been decimated and that conservatives have been very successful in using such insecurity and sense of lose to attack minorities, uppity women, gays, the japanese etc etc. So infact what was in truth a brutal class assault on a militant industrial base becomes hidden behind the zero sum racialised/sexualised politics of the US.

I have repeatedly said that the politics of 1968 cannot be transposed to today and that Race Traitor does just that. I can't be more clear that white racist politics today are not those of 1960. In 1960, whites of all classes felt superior, today their complaint, their achingly assinine whine, is that they are oppressed victims of liberal, black welfare mother privilege.

And this is explicitly what Reaganism and Thatcherism appealed to and enforced. By eliminating the last hired and most precarious, who in spite of small gains in the 1960's and early 70s, were still disporportionately black workers, they pushed the ideology that work = worth, that credit worthy = ethically and morally superior, that individualism = good and anyone needing a handout from the state = bad. And frankly most whites bought into that pretty damn quick, while it took a few decades of this kind of abuse for it to get any ground among black workers.

Contemporary white racism is revanchist, it is based on feeling victimized, on being abused, on turning the class war of capital versus labor into a war of those who work against the moochers and welfare queens, a war which in the US cannot but be racialized and nationalist.

But it is not based on a certainty of biological racial supremacy. It is even more individualistic and stands upon access to credit, accumulated wealth, etc. all of which white workers had in much greater abundance, not to mention white petty bourgeois and bourgeois.

And there have been huge changes in the black middle class. too, which I have talked about a little, but which I think is best handled in Adolph Reed Jr.'s article Black Particularity Reconsidered, which while insufficient, is a great start.

Quote:
I'm not wishing to generalise but a similar situation can be seen in Northern Ireland where the traditional industrial protestant working class has seen it's work outsourced and the factories it worked in closed. These were people who worked semi skilled industrial jobs and often fought tooth and nail to keep catholics out. They fought for the "previlege" of working in their unionist masters factories for pittance and jealously guarded against fenians "trying to take their jobs". Meanwhile for their loyalty they were paid well below the rate of similar workers in the UK and lived in victorian two up two down terraces with an outside toliet.

Right, except you need to imagine this in the wealthiest country in the world. If it is effective in Northern Ireland, imagine its hold here.

Quote:
This working class has since been abandoned by the Unionist leadership, they are economic relics and what's more their unwavering loyalty and sectarianism is an embarrassing reminder of the past, there is no room for it in the nice fluffy, liberal, united colours of benetton N.Ireland. This "previleged" section of the class has been left to sink in a world it's had no preparation for. It has the lowest uptake of further education than any other demographic in the UK and Northern Ireland, lower than even black inner city working class youth. A large reason for this is the fact that these people had been brought up to think they would get a semi skilled decent paying job, as such education was seen as a middle class indulgence by many. For the working class catholics who were largely excluded from such jobs, they had much more limited choices, construction trade being a big one, and so education was given much more importance, it was seen as the only way to bettering yourself, to getting a job. This is one reason why Northern Ireland has such a surplus of teachers.

Almost the exact same thing is happening here where black workers and Latino workers continue to pursue college educations at a faster rate (though in raw numbers it is not comparable, the comparative rate is much higher among non-whites.) This also reflects that with a much lower level of education, whites can get the same jobs without accruing the crushing debt that comes with $15,000 a year tuitions in schools that cost $4,000 a year in 1986.

Quote:
Well ofcourse now it's not hard to see what's happening to those stubborn working class prods, they are basically stuck in a rut, disavowed by their old leadership, loathed and feared by the middle class, and their communities torn apart by paramilitary gangsterism. This is where their "previlege" has got them.

They were not so much disavowed here, and supposedly ex-Klansmen like David Duke and perenial klansmen like Strom Thurmonand new guys like Hart who was elected with 83% of the vote and was openly racist, or the guy in Virginia who almost won and who was blatantly racist, etc. They got Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush Jr, each worse than the last. They got a say on every petty, bigotted, narrow minded thing they could pull forth, and they got credit and suburbia and most of the benfits of every recovery. Even though overall the so-called white worker still took a horrendous beating since the 1970's. Of course, this was because taxes were too high because of welfare mothers, the unemployed, the lazy, the homeless, the criminals in prison getting free food and TV, and the criminals robbing (mostly not white people) in the streets.

Ah, they can't say the N word, but they have learned all of the racial codes taught by liberals in the 1960s like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, about cultural differences.

Quote:
Now I don't know too much about the states but in some ways is that not what is happening in the white blue collar rust belts? The establishment that encouraged their racism and provided "previleges" has since moved on, the jobs no longer exist, the unions are impotent and their standard of living is actually worse than in the 60's and 70's? That the latent anger and hurt about this lose of "power" is being misdirected towards minorities, women and gays? Watching US television over here it seems that blue collar working class whitey's are seen as the low of the low. They are the white trash that have no excuse, afterall they were the "previleged" ones, if they couldn't pull themselves up into the middle class it's cause they were too lazy etc.

Yes and no. Again, in the booms, whites still get preferential treatment. When stocks are up, whites employed will get something that blacks unemployed will not. When unemployment is 8% n white neighborhoods, it is 18% in black neighborhoods.

Sure, there has been tremendous deterioration, but so far it has not translated into class anger. It has translted into a very reactionary populism that is explicitly non-racial and implicitly racist as hell. It is more explicitly anti-gay and patriarchal, and it gets support from the black middle and upper classes who despise and fear the black worker and poor as much if not more than the white middle class. Something about familiarity breeds contempt.

So yes, it isn't what it used to be. Race in 1950 wasn't race in 1890 or race in 1870 or race in 1850. Each time, the generationof race has changed because something in capital has changed, some other aspect. In 1850, blacks were not human. In 1870, blacks were trying to take power! in 1890, blacks were inferior and the white man was the pinnacle of the human race. In 1950, well Naziism was kind of embarassing and while white men were superior, times were changing. in 1975, well, except for a small layer of the white population, the racial supremacy of 1950, much less 1890, was broken.

Maybe today exactly for these reasons, for the increasing decay of the material privileges it carries, racial supremacism is weaker and is therefore also nastier and more brutal. The fever pitch comes when the fear and powerlessness is greatest.

I remain hopeful, even though I retain contempt for those who think that racism did not and does not bear material privilege. It must, to work. But the old cracker is an embarassment, while the new, slick anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-welfare, pro-individual racist wants to make sure just as much that as much of his or her competition is eliminated and kept at a safe distance to live and die in "the jungle".

Chris

BTW: pretty typical discussion of racism in the US among white people. Much more what I hear everyday...
http://www.truehoop.com/leaguewide-issues-8470-celebrities-and-race.html

or this

http://forums.windrivers.com/archive/index.php/t-62110.html

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 21 2006 08:38
redtwister wrote:
I think first I want to see a rational argument for stating that sexism entails male privilege but racism does not entail white privilege (in a context where the oppressor is white, which is not all context, as in Japan, for example.)

Sexism doesn't entail male privilege, patriarchy, however does. There is a difference.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 21 2006 21:20
madashell wrote:
redtwister wrote:
I think first I want to see a rational argument for stating that sexism entails male privilege but racism does not entail white privilege (in a context where the oppressor is white, which is not all context, as in Japan, for example.)

Sexism doesn't entail male privilege, patriarchy, however does. There is a difference.

Ok, ok. So you are still arguing that there is patriarchy and that entails privilege, but sexism does not. I am arguing that we are not merely dealing with racism, but white supremacism.

Never mind for the moment I find this a little specious; unless you clarify how you differentiate say patriarchy and sexism, I don't know what the heck you mean.

So please clarify.

Chris

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Nov 23 2006 22:13

Erm that long post was really good redtwister.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 23 2006 22:41
OliverTwister wrote:
Quote:
I think first I want to see a rational argument for stating that sexism entails male privilege but racism does not entail white privilege (in a context where the oppressor is white, which is not all context, as in Japan, for example.)

Briefly:

While you're mostly right on that, it seems a bit superficial to compare one which has at least the pretence of a justifiable biological definition and somewhat stable categories, while the other is based entirely on how the ruling class defines "white". For instance these days Jews, Italians, etc. are basically identified as "white", and there are political-economical reasons for why that came to be, but there was certainly a lot of racism towards both groups when what mattered was what kind of "white" you were. Similarly black people in south central LA certainly felt a lot of enmity towards Korean shop owners, and the way that racism played out in that context very much promoted "Korean privilege" (such as the shop owner being aquitted for shooting a shoplifter).

On the other hand the categories which sexism employs have been relatively stable the last few centuries, even if the role that each is expected to play have changed.

Hey OT,

I don't think there is any more biological basis for sexism or patriarchy than there is for racism or racial privilege. Biological differences only matter in a context where human beings decide they matter. That biological differences become the basis of power differences is even more a social phenomena.

Also, I am not asking for a comparison per se of racism and sexism, as the two are not particularly qualitatively comparable. Rather, I am curious what would justify separating racism/sexism from racial/sexual privilege.

As for racism and its conflation with prejudice, there is certainly an open field for all kinds of prejudice and personal "racism", but that is not the same thing as a systematic oppression of one group by another, the systematic racializing of the population. That is why even though you might find plenty of hatred for white people in the black community or anti-Asian stuff coming from the Nation of Islam, it is quite clear that the state has never systematically favored black people over those racialized as white; that the bourgeoisie is not now and never has been black; that those racialized as white were never systematically denied access to housing, jobs, etc. because they were white.

To claim that personal or even group prejudice is the same as that systematic oppression by capital, through the support of a cross-class mass of the population racialized as superior (in the US as 'white'), would be ludicrous.

Your point strikes me as exactly blurring this difference.

In the specific context of European immigrants, the conflict was about how these groups became racialized. Americanization, contrary to the national chauvinism of Race Traitor, is racialization as not-Black and not-Mexican because both stand in a special relationship to U.S. capital's historical development. Whether that will change for Mexicans is very much at issue today. At one time it would have been necessary to include No-Chinese. But frankly, the enduring racial bottom against which a group became racialized as white was becoming anti-black (and to a lesser extent after the 19th century, anti-Native American.)

Jews also find themselves in a particularly weird position because anti-Semitism came over from Europe and even today has a special tendency to re-appear even in leftist anti-globalization fantasies about the domination of nation states by a cartel of giant lenders, rather than a critique of capital proper.

In the US context, the situation is also quite complex, certainly beyond what I can put forward here, if I could even adequately do so at all.

Chris

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 23 2006 22:42
georgestapleton wrote:
Erm that long post was really good redtwister.

Its sad, but I have to ask "Which long post?"

And thanks,

Chris

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Nov 23 2006 22:46

your first post on this page.

and you're welcome. wink

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 23 2006 23:41
redtwister wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the politics of 1968 cannot be transposed to today and that Race Traitor does just that. I can't be more clear that white racist politics today are not those of 1960.

co-incidence, i just finished re-reading the "best of" race traitor, published 10 years ago. some interesting factual stuff, but yes, it seemed old. do they still publish? the last issue i see reference to is jan 2005.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Nov 24 2006 04:56
newyawka wrote:
redtwister wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the politics of 1968 cannot be transposed to today and that Race Traitor does just that. I can't be more clear that white racist politics today are not those of 1960.

co-incidence, i just finished re-reading the "best of" race traitor, published 10 years ago. some interesting factual stuff, but yes, it seemed old. do they still publish? the last issue i see reference to is jan 2005.

I have not seen anything from them since then, no. I think the anti-globalization movement already caught them off guard and they deteriorated post-9/11.

Maybe they are caught up in trying to still get Bring the Ruckus going, which I had suspiscions was their project.

Cheers,
Chris

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 26 2006 23:47

Good posts redtwister.

And not all anti-racism in the UK is "liberal" or whatever someone said it was. That's just a cop-out, the standard excuse to do nothing. Even the "wishy washy anti racist liberals" have a better grasp on white supremacy than some of the stuff I've seen here, although what they do with it might not necessarily be particularly useful, at least they recognise it as a problem. That's at least a starting point.