>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/01 12:10PM >>>
Well, the Classical Marxist school (Darity, Williams, et al) argues that
capitalists do not autonomously determine the composition of the divisions
within the working class, but rather that gendered and racially and ethnically
diverse workers participate in the process that distinguishes
the waged from the unwaged, the high-waged from the low-waged, and the
job-secure from the job-insecure. There is intense competition, rooted in the
nature of capitalism, not only between capital and labor, and between capital
and capital, but between workers. Workers attempt to protect themselves from
this competition and so participate in the differentiation, and so it is not
simply divide and conquer tactics of capitalists that divide the working class.
((((((((
CB: It is not clear to me how intense competition between workers is rooted in the
nature of capitalism, beyond the specific nature of capitalism which is the
consciousness of the bosses that if they can manipulate the workers to divide them,
they will make more profits and thwart working class unity and victory in the class
struggle. That would take us back to the capitalists as the main source and origin (
if not autonomous determiners) of the competition and differentiation of the workers.
How would participating in the differentiation protect workers' from the competition ?
Presumably, the Black and other specially oppressed workers are made vulnerable to
the competition by differentiation, not protected from it. So , oppressed workers
have , on balance, strong motivation to unite, not differentiate from, "advantaged"
workers. That would seem to reduce it to "advantaged" categories of workers
participating in differentiation to gain advantage ( not get protection) from the
competition.
Yet, this "advantage" is self-undermining, because the disadvantaged workers become a
group with a natural tendency to scab against the advantaged workers, when the latter
have their inevitable conflicts with capital. The recent newspaper workers' strike in
Detroit was undermined in part by the vast pool of unemployed Black workers availble
to break the strike. Advantage to the company. Henry Ford used the same dynamic to
delay the union at Ford in the 1930's.
This is not to deny the acts and "customs" of divisiveness among advantaged workers,
but there is enough knowledge within the working class and its trade unions of this
history such that there are anti-racist traditions , and here I guess I would say
enough to say that there is not an _autonomous_ determination from "advantaged"
workers for division that would not fade away if it were not continuously and
systematically promoted and resurrected by the bourgeoisie, with all its power over
the state , media, culture, housing and education.
So still, it would seem to be important to differentiate between the quality of the
roles of the white workers and the bourgeoisie in making "differentiation" and
"competition" between the workers. It is not clear that "war" is an appropriate term
for both, as it equates the conflict between capital and labor with conflicts among
workers. It is possible to recognize conflicts among workers without equating them
with the conflict between classes.
Also, must say that there is more than one Classical Marxist economics school of
thought on this. CPUSA Economics Commission, late Victor Perlo et al. ,are Classical
Marxists who do not equate the role of bourgeoisie and white workers in fomenting
divisions in the working class, rather very much the opposite of that.
(((((((((((
The employed are at war not only with capital, but with the unemployed as well.
The highwaged are at war not only with capital but with the low waged as well.
Note that one does not even have to take the position that white workers benefit
from racism to acknowledge that white workers participate in the process. One
can argue that white workers (and men) participate in the process to their own
detriment. So there are two separable issues: 1) are white working class men
"hurt" by racism and patriarchy?; 2) do white working class men participate in
the processes that result in wage, employment, and job inequality by race and
gender?
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8792] Is Racism in the Interest of White Workers?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/06/01 09:10PM >>>
Yoshie asks:
>>Do white workers gain _higher real wages & better social programs_ by
practicing racism _even in the short term_?>>
Yes, I think they do. Bigotry in the work place pays off -- that is why
all those white men out there have lower unemployment rates and higher
wages -- even in unskilled labor -- than anyone else in the labor
market. maggie coleman
((((((((((
CB: However, it is not the white workers, but the bosses who do the hiring and
the firing which determines who is unemployed. So, the racism of the white
workers does not directly cause black higher unemployment. It is the racism of
the bosses that gives white workers the higher employment rate.
((((((((((
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Maggie says:
>
> >1. I think that the age old "what's short and what's long?"
> >question applies here.
> >Most people (from all classes, including the working class) do not
> >think of long
> >term strategy -- in fact the only people I know of who think in
> >terms of long term
> >strategy are economists, political economists, and lefties.
>
>
