THoughts on Peter's post --- I put "white" in front of working class to distinguish those folks who are more susceptible to racist infection than the rest of the multi-racial, multi-cultural working class --- The point is that there are countless examples of class unity being disrupted --- (sometimes irrevocably destroyed as when the Southern Populist Party opted to support JIM CROW legislation after the electoral defeat in 1896 --- before then, there were elements of black-white unity in the Farmers' Alliances as well as the early years of the Populist Party ---
The Labor Aristocratic AFL supported the racism of many of its constituent unions throughout the first half of the 20th century --- So that's why I made sure to emphasize "white" when I wrote about the susceptibility of "workers" in the US --- And I am hoping that racism is being defeated by the "browning, etc." of America --- it's hard to be racist when your new son-in-law is black or latino and you're white !!! On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 5:19 PM Peter Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to admit some ignorance at trimming extraneous text. I've done > that with forwards, but not with replies. Anyway, I wanted to make a point > to Mike, and more indirectly to Sonje: > > The word "white" has been interjected before "working class", and this is > potentially significant. Those of us who observe political culture notice > that the working class in the minds of many, if not most, is associated > with white men. I know Mike would protest that he is well aware of the > reality, but it's he who interjected "white". > > We have seen critiques of this phenomenon that say that the reality of the > working class is that it is mostly non-white/non-male. Somehow the > interests of those who are female or "of color" (I bristle a little at that > term) are identified politically as that, rather than on the basis of their > class position. We also see that groups like the dreaded Socialist > Equality Party make polemical points on this. Let's be honest: It's not > like they are simply bloviating. Not on that point, at least. > > I think that Mike has a point about younger workers being more receptive > to socialism, but I also think that the ideas of white male workers > particularly are not so cast in stone. As I said, they don't frame > opinions that way. They are not so anti-communist as just not focused on > that. Times have changed, and so have the dog-whistles. My working > experience was in conservative situations, I was not shy about my > radicalism, and I had no blowback from fellow workers. Union piecards, to > be sure; but they aren't solidly in the working class. > > Hopefully we are aware of how class consciousness advances by leaps in > situations of class struggle. For those without this experience, > industrial workers become very open to radical ideas on picket lines. If > you scratch below the rhetorical surface, you can find a latent class > consciousness in most workers when they talk about the relations between > them and "the boss". To place workers, or anyone, in some political box > due to what they might say when subjected to questions from a poll taker is > misleading. Consciousness is more fluid and more complicated than that. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#711): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/711 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76355485/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES<br />#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.<br />#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.<br />#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
