The Relation Between the Working Class and Nonclass Oppressions

by Wayne Fri Aug 24, 2007 00:35

After Part I of Class Struggle Anarchism, Joe Licentia
address: http://question-everything.mahost.org
wrote the following question:

"If you agree with the analysis in this article but also believe that other oppressions (racism, patriarchy, the state) are equally important are you still a class struggle anarchist? If so, what would you call someone who thinks class is the most important oppression?"

I responded that I would answer this after Part 2 (the above). So, my answer is this: Joe compares two views, that of anarchists who see class struggle as one of several main oppressions, and those who see class struggle as the only or most important issue.

I would regard both views as those of class struggle anarchists. I would be willing to work with both. But I am most in disagreement with the second, ccentrally focused on class, due to its sectarian denial of issues which affect everyone. In the past, I have argued with revolutionary anarchists and libertarian communists who reject national liberation as a significant issue., because it is supposedly not a "class" issue.

I do not completely agree with those who regard class as just one of several issues and who do not see its centrality. However, in practice there may be little difference in our programs, so long as we both agree that class overlaps with all the other issues.

by Steffi Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:35

Thanks so much, Wayne, for writing this article! I am really happy to read something like this, especially after having discussions with class-struggle anarchists who see class-struggle everywhere, like, even saying that women’s oppression is only class-oppression and implying that it will go away with the class-struggle or leaving it to women’s groups to deal with that issue. They also think that I, as an Anarcha-feminist, am dividing the movement. That is bullshit, I am a class-struggle anarchist just as they are, but I know that some issues need special treatment, such as women’s issues. I am not trying to unite all women against men, across class, after all I am an ANARCHA-feminist! I think men who only think that the class-war is all we need to focus on are in fact splitting the movement and make people who think all issues are relevant set up their own movements. THEY are being sectarian and to build a better world we shouldn’t be sectarian but work together, especially when we agree on the main issues, that is being pro-organisational or platform-inspired and the like.

Saying that only class matters is a gross simplification and human life cannot be simplified. These anarchists may only want to focus on class because it is easier to just focus on one issue and leave the rest to special organizations such as the women’s movement. (Even though they actually reject the women’s movement because it is not a class movement. That is why it’s even more weird to also reject Anarcha-feminists). There are many oppressions and we need to deal with all of them, but always keeping in mind that we want a society without any oppressions, and class is central to that. But to say that women’s oppression is just class oppression is bullshit, even in class-less societies, and yes, they exist (just take a look at anthropological literature and most African societies where capitalism has not lead to a class structure, but macho-cultures that still oppress women because they think it is ‘African’ to be a macho).

Sometimes it makes me think that these men who think that women’s issues are only a side-issue are men who don’t want to lose their privilege or who are afraid that their issues might be side-lined because they are aware that working class women are worse treated than working class men. But Anarcha-feminists don’t want to put women’s issues in the front. We just want to show that women’s issues need special treatment, that’s all. We are not forgetting about men! (I am singling out women’s issue but of course all forms of oppression have to be dealt with the same way)

I totally agree with you that all forms of oppression are intertwined but we should not forget that some are more central than others, i.e. we as Anarcha-feminists totally agree with this and don’t see women’s issues as central but class. This is what anthropologists call cross-cutting cleavages, multiple cleavages that affect us, sometimes only one of the cleavages is the most important one, but at other times all can affect us. The example of an African-American woman and the different forms of oppression from which she is suffering is a great example and it will help me in my discussions! :)
And yes, it will take a total revolution to get rid of all forms of oppression because only then will they fully go away.

I think supporting groups that deal with ‘other’ oppressions is not enough. We need to take in all forms of oppression in our movements as well, just because they are all intertwined. That is, we need to say every time, just as you say, that women face double oppression, that people of color face double oppression, women of color triple oppression and so on. These things go together. Otherwise we will lose people to other movements that neglect class-issues, we will lose women who are working class but who think they suffer more because of the way they get treated (because they are women) to women’s movements that don’t care about class. I don’t think we need to prioritize but those things can go together easily. If we prioritize we will lose people exactly because of that.

But once again, I think this is a great article and I agree with you! Thanks for writing this!

by Wayne Fri Aug 24, 2007 20:20

Steffi, very well said. You expand--and illustrate--my points well.

by A. Weaver Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:15

Thank you as well for a well written article. I enjoyed your analogy of oppression as a number sticks that are leaning on each other (like you would make in trying to start a fire) with class as a central one of those sticks propping up the others. I'm not sure if your analysis would be the same as what feminists call "multi-systems analysis" or if that term would fall under the catagory of seeing oppression as all equal.

One aspect of the simplistic class reductionist analysis that Steffi wrote about (and is more often associated with vulgar Marxist analysis of class) is that it does not analyze the make up of the working class. People of color, women and queer folks are part of the working class and as those aspects of their lives effects effect them, their issues are working class issues. And historically, because white and male workers would not recogize women and people of color as equals in the class struggle.

Some good examples of this is here in the western US during turn of the century white workers violently attacked Chinese workers as a threat, arguing that they brought down wages. But even though Chinese workers made as much efforts to strike and organize as other workers would (their main demand being to raise their wages to the levels of white workers), the white labor movement would not recognize them as workers and refused to support them (See "Orientals
Asian Americans in Popular Culture" by
Robert G. Lee, chapter 2 'The Coolie and the Making of the White Working Class'). Much the same today, a proclaimed Anarcho-syndicalist I know, dismissed the incredible May 1st 2006 marches of Latino and immigrant workers in his city of Chicago as a 'political movement' because the demands were for citizenship and some waved flags (US as well as Mexican and other Central American countries). A very surface analysis despite the fact that their undocumented or immigrant status is the crucial factor in why these workers are at some of the lowest paid jobs, or are even openly paid less than other workers at the same job site because the employer is aware of their status. Secondly, many of the workers participating in the marches were following the strike call and not showing to work en masse, which shut down many factories in the city. Though it is not without contridictions, if this is not a working class movement taking direct action (and the only thing that we've seen along these lines in the US for decades) , then what is? Workers that are oppressed by race and/or gender are often lead some of the most militant struggles, but class reductionist politics cannot seem to get a graps on this.

I'm just using one frame of reference to reinforce Wayne's point (others could apply), but why is it when race comes into the picture, good sense and anlaysis of white revolutionaries suddenly breaks down? Their class reductionist politics and framework for understanding class prevents them from understanding the basic picture. Whenever white workers organize it is considered class struggle, but when people of color do so, it is always something else?! I believe that revolutionaries having a clear (or at least some) understanding of race and how it has effected working class strugle and a comittment to fight agsinst this legacy seperates the wheat from the chaff as far as serious revolutionaries, at least in the US.

by Wayne Mon Aug 27, 2007 03:28

Yes, it was perhaps the most exciting thing I have seen in a long time to see Latino workers (and others from Asian, etc. countries) march against discrimination and oppression. One of the most oppressed sections of the working class was mobilizing. The overlapping of nationality and class was there to be seen. Of course, there were many contradictions, such as the support for liberal Democrats, liberal union bureaucrats, and nationalism. What else can we expect? But we certainly cannot change these factors unless we revolutionary anarchists are prepared to participate in and support such struggles--contrary to the view of your anarcho-syndicalist friend.

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Tue Aug 28, 2007 18:32

i just wanted to say i agree with Wayne, and with the comments by Steffi and A. Weaver. The working class is heterogeneous, especially so in the USA, and ignoring the non-class aspects to oppression only makes achieving unity more difficult because the working class is divided internally by racism and patriarchy. these other forms of oppression have to be dealt with. i think because the oppression of various groups of people are not identical this a reason to respect autonomy of different social movements.

by Dave B - world socialist movement Sat Sep 01, 2007 21:05

I think this idea, simplified , that capitalism and the capitalist state creates ideology or in this case prejudices amongst the working class and that is the end of it is not the ‘Marxist’ position. Although it has undoubtedly been adopted by people who call themselves Marxists.

The correct ‘understanding’ of Marx and Engels position is that ruling class propagate or develop ‘ideas’ in society that serve their own economic interests. Using their position of power as members of the ruling class to do so and manufacturing consent to an ideological or cultural position that suits them, at the time.

These ideologies can then later ‘react’, kickback or blowback at the ‘state ideology’ later on. Particularly when due to changing ‘economic’ circumstances they become inconvenient

Thus from Engel’s;


"And if this man has not yet discovered that while the material mode
of existence is the primum agens [primary agent, prime cause] this
does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in
their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have
understood the subject he is writing about.

However, as I said, all this is second hand and little Moritz is a
dangerous friend. The materialist conception of history has a lot of
them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying
history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the
French `Marxists' of the late [18]70s: `All I know is that I am not
a Marxist'."


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm


To take an extremely simple example, it was not all that long ago that the capitalist media was encouraging the Afghan Mujahadine to resist infidel invaders, after a tribute to Orwells 1984;



The New York Times of January 1st 1984 stated

“The Afghans need no encouragement to resist. But they could use better weapons especially against warplanes.” And given the difficulties of supplying such weapons “ Airdrops . . . might be one way round the problem.”

Sentiments you won’t hear echoes of today in the New York Times. One can just imagine the Administration’s reaction to anybody belatedly taking up that advice today.

On April 26th, same year

“Afghans look upon Russians not only as invaders but also infidels and take up their arms for both nation and Islam. Even if Soviet brutality prevails it can give powerful impetus to Islamic fundamentalism throughout the region.”

The problem that the ruling class can have is that sometimes it is a lot easier to put an ideology or prejudice into the heads of the working class when it is convenient than it can be to remove it when it becomes ‘economically’ inconvenient later on.

A case in point is the bigotry of the ex Protestant planters of Northern Ireland, the culture of prejudice clearly has an economic origin. This ideology has become embedded into the culture of working class ‘Protestants’ who seem to be the only ones interested in perpetuating it now.

Whether or not it ‘serves’ a purpose for these bigots in providing a tangible object on which vent their repressed anger and frustration on is another question.


The capitalist system which sets worker against worker in a competitive struggle that mirrors the competitive struggle amongst the capitalist class themselves is always going to provide fertile ground for mutual hostilities and phobias amongst the working class.

Hostilities that can be selectively fuelled at will by the ruling class as and when it suits them.

It is a question of cutting the thing off at its root, capitalism, rather than forever chopping off the poisonous serpent heads of an ideological hydra.

Having said that the two things are not mutually exclusive as getting rid of capitalism requires working class solidarity on both a rational and emotive level.

Speaking personally as a member of the World Socialist Movement

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Sat Sep 01, 2007 21:58

Dave B.'s comments are the traditional Marxist view, and I find this view still common among European anarchists. But this is not the majority view among the radical left in the USA nowadays, whether Marxist or anarchist. Because there has been a reduction in overt expressions of race prejudice or racist ideology in the USA over the past 30 years, this is why conservatives say that nothing further needs to be done. so Dave's conception of racism plays into the hands of the conservatives.

Racism is not merely a conscious state -- "prejudice" or "ideology" -- but a pattern of relative advantage or disadvantage. The persistence of this pattern explains the persistence of prejudice. Let's say that you seek out job leads from family and friends, and you are white, and the hiring managers are white. The fact that you are part of a network with better links to job openings, and are more likely thus to be hired, means you've benefited from an unacknowledged form of "affirmative action," affirmative action that tends to favor white guys. Given this advantage, it provides people with a material motivation to defend it.

Moreover, employers have an incentive to defend this system of hiring that privileges men and whites. That's because it exacerbates resentments and distrust among the various groups that make up the working class. By undermining working class solidarity, it strenthens managements' hand. Thus it works to the advantage of capital and to the disadvantage of the working class.

by Dave B Sun Sep 02, 2007 03:34

I do not quite understand how it can implied that as regards ‘racism’, that I can somehow agree with the conservatives that nothing further needs to be done when I said;

‘getting rid of capitalism requires working class solidarity on both a rational and emotive level.’

Calling for solidarity amongst all the various so-called ‘races’ or ‘ethnic’ groups that comprise the working class is an anti-racist position. There is only one ‘race’ and that is the human race.

There can be no solidarity amongst the working class as long as they are divided and pre-described sections of it consider themselves as not equal to others based on some emotive prejudice.

Divisions within the working class, eg racism, feed off the possibility ‘of relative advantage or disadvantage’ amongst them and it is capitalism that provides ‘the fertile ground for these mutual hostilities’.

Or economic competition amongst a divided working class.

Once divided into sections on the basis of some previous spurious ‘reason’.

Whether or not the capitalist class wishes to maintain certain divisions amongst the working class or create new ones for its own economic advantage or ‘to the advantage of capital and to the disadvantage of the working class’ is something that concerns the capitalist class. Or to put another way;

‘Hostilities can be selectively fuelled at will by the ruling class as and when it suits them.’

It is certainly the case that the ruling class can be infected themselves with their own ideological bullshit as well as the workers, long after it has any economic relevance to either of them.

The fact that these ‘isms’ and the hatred and suffering that flow from them are repugnant in their own right is another, albeit moral issue. But again that is part and parcel of the ethos of capitalism itself and therefore entirely consistent with it.

Hopefully all these strange fruits of capitalism will wither away on the vine, like the state, once the thing that produces them is finally uprooted.


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Wed Sep 05, 2007 04:08

dave B. simply doesn't respond at all to my point. Instead he repeats the same view of racism he started out with, e.g.:

"There can be no solidarity amongst the working class as long as they are divided and pre-described sections of it consider themselves as not equal to others based on some emotive prejudice."

Racism isn't just "some emotive prejudice." In the USA racism became institutionalized, it became an entrenched pattern of disadvantages or advantages to different groups. For example, consider a building trades union. These are relatively well paying jobs, and they have been traditionally overwhelmingly white men. the way a person gets into this line of work is, say, one of their relatives or friends recommends them for an apprenticeship or to be accepted as a union member, or recommends them to a (white male) contractor. The effect of this pattern is to perpetuate the fact that a particular ethnic group or groups, usually white, continue to get the jobs.

Now, it does not have to be based on "emotive prejudice." If you ask a worker in the building trades, they might say it is simply "natural" to recommend your relatives and friends. the individual worker may not be overtly prejudiced. but in a segregated society, one's friends are likely to be of the same shade. this method of filling jobs is effectively racist but it doesn't necessarily require overt, conscious prejudice to continue to exist.

to break this what's required is some positive action such as developing programs to recruit and train women and non-whites for the building trades. merely being "color blind" or non-racist in one's personal attitude isn't sufficient.

by Jonathan - ZACF Wed Sep 05, 2007 17:53

Both parts of this article are now available in PDF here:

by ajohnstone - Socialist Party of Great Britain Thu Sep 06, 2007 03:35 ajsc21755 at blueyonder dot co dot uk Edinburgh , Scotland na

Tom rightly describes that racism can be institutionalised , and Dave B. concurs referring to what he describes as the "embedded " bigotry in Northern Ireland , and adding to the irrationality of the situation , DaveB says "how the ruling class can be infected ...as well as the workers, long after it has any economic relevance to either of them."

i don't believe DaveB or anyone would dispute that the basis of his analysis is that of one of a Marxist - the materialistic conception of history - eg in Northern Ireland "...the culture of prejudice clearly has an economic origin..." but for Tom that is a crime in itself , it appears .

For Tom , the solution is " positive action such as developing programs " - reformism

For DaveB , it is to chop away the underlying cause of divisions - revolution .

In South Africa we see how colour blindness , can blind some to the existence of the black capitalist elite that has assumed control because the root cause of exploitation was never challenged and no amount of "affirmative actions programs " will displace this capitalist class .

by Jonathan Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27

I don't think that you can rightly call South Africa colour blind; it is anything but that. People are not blind to the black capitalist elite; many are still just under the illusion that, with Black Economic Empowerment, this elite will expand to include more and more of the lower classes into the middle class and bourgeoisie. It is probably precisely because the new elite is black that they are not challenged by the majority of society, but that is not colour blind; it is colour conscious.

You are right that the root cause of exploitation was never challenged, and that is why people still have faith in BEE; because they do not recognise the root cause of their exploitation, and are convinced by the ANC rhetoric that attracting foreign investment etc. will solve the problem. With the result that the new elite sits comfortably in the drivers seat of a neo-liberal economy, supposedly intended to benefit and empower the poor - despite the increasing opulence of the new elite. They are visibly in that seat, but many people don't see there anything wrong with that, they are just working hard and biding their time until their chance for empowerment comes along.

by dave b - world socialist movement Sun Sep 09, 2007 20:37

In response to;

racism is structural, not mere prejudice or ideology
by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Wednesday, Sep 5 2007, 2:08am

Dear Tom

I do not understand the point of this building workers example it just looks like obfuscation. What you are saying is that another kind of ‘ism’, in this case nepotism can look like racism when in fact it isn’t. In other words nepotism is not racism.

And then we get a 180 degree change of direction with nepotism is ‘effectively racism’ because the members of each tribe or extended family tend to be of the same ‘race’.

I object to the whole stupid concept of race and hate having to embrace it even if it is to argue against it.

It is only making a difficult subject more difficult when you start mixing ‘isms’ up together. That is not to say that nepotism and racism can’t operate together and you would just need to get inside the bigots heads to try and find out which is more important to them, even if they understood it themselves.

You also seem to be implying in your example that nepotism or tribalism or what ever you want to call it isn’t an ‘emotive prejudice’ and is somehow natural. One ism eg racism is as bad another when it comes to discriminating against or for someone based on some arbitrary immaterial accident of birth.


When I said that the “ruling class propagate or develop ‘ideas’ in society that serve their own economic interests” I attempted to choose my words carefully.

You can get economic rivalries between segregated sections of the working class developing on their own ‘naturally’ as it were without the interference of the ruling class. Particularly with economic migration, as in the case of the Irish, Italians or poles etc. As the incumbent working class feel the economic pressure of having their wages undercut in times of economic pressure.

The ruling class can actively encourage this, ignore it or in some cases when it becomes inconvenient try and stamp it out. At the moment in the UK we have quite a significant economic migration from Poland in particular. As our welfare system is at the moment is not stretched and many of these workers are skilled we are all being told how wonderful it all is by the capitalist class, and the ‘indigenous’ workers in their turn don’t seem to be the slightest bit bothered by it.

The capitalist spokesperson Enoch Powell, who later made the infamous racist rivers of blood speech, was at an earlier time encouraging economic migration into the UK of these very same people when there was a labour shortage in the 1960’s.


When we do get these divisions within the working class which grow out of the competitive nature of capitalism they are justified or to use a psychoanalytical term are rationalised in the form of an ideology. A set of ideas are developed to excuse the oppression of one section of the working class by another for reasons other than the real one, or possibly to supplement it .

Thus it can be claimed to be reasonable for one section to be disadvantaged because they are innately stupid, lazy, criminal, culturally inferior or sub human or something.

The level of awareness that these people have that the ideological justification for the oppression is just that, probably varies. Just as the level of awareness amongst the media and political elite that the justifications for the invasion of Iraq was bullshit probably varies. Once the ideology of racism for instance becomes institutionalised, for many of the more sincere and most dangerous bigots the original economic reason can be of little importance.

For them the prejudice probably satisfies another need of having an outlet and object for their repressed anger, frustration and sense of perceived humiliation as a result of living under capitalism’s worst effects. Commonly understood as scapegoating, kicking the cat, or in psychoanalytical terms ‘displacement’.

This in itself can be useful to the capitalist class in order to deflect blame from themselves and channel anger in a safer direction ie Germany in the 1930’s. Although in that case it got a little bit out of control.

In fact the ruling class in manipulating ideology play a dangerous game as they are often not much interested in the nature of the justification but only its consequences and the short term consequences at that. Hence there is nothing particularly anomalous about them supporting Islamic fundamentalists in the past. And even concurrently supporting the notional idea of democracy in one Arab country whilst supporting a feudal dictatorship in another.

Sometimes for the ruling class some of this stubborn retro superstructure created in the distant past becomes inconvenient and needs reform. I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if some sections of the capitalist class would agree with Tom that they needed to ;

‘recruit and train women and non whites for the building trades’.


If you do not understand what you are about you can find yourself keeping rather strange company.

by Tom Mon Sep 10, 2007 21:07

my description of how hiring works in the building trades is not accurately described as "nepotism." that's because, for one thing, it can be friends and neighbors who are referred to contractors or given an in in joining the union. if you read books by people who tell people how to find jobs, they will always say, rely on your network of friends, former coworkers, ex-bosses. in a segregated society where the better paying and more skilled jobs are held mainly by white people, those in the networks of white job seekers will be mainly other white people.

this explains a lot of the reason for higher unemployment and worse paying jobs by non-whites in the USA.

because these networks give white workers a material advantage over non-white workers who don't have this access, it is in their short term interests to protect this system. if people have a material advantage from an arrangement, this will tend to encourage them to adopt ideas that justify it. so, if you have a material structure -- a pattern of advantage -- that benefits whites, this tends to encourage them to have racist ideas.

since dave says racism is just ideology -- it's just bad ideas in your head -- he has a hard time explaining why it persists. of course we know that the elite classes use divide and conquer but why do racist tendencies persist in the white working class?

basically dave doesn't understand structural or institutional racism, as distinct from racism as conscious prejudice or ideology. but I've given just one example of how a structure or pattern can persist racial inequality without it being based on overt racist ideology, tho it tends to encourage that ideology. dave's way of looking at it has the sort of disadvantage that Marx called "idealism". It doesn't really explain what in material reality persists the ideas.

moreover, if dave is opposed to affirmative action, then he agrees with the bosses and the conservatives in the USA. they also say we should "not think about race." but, then, how do you deal with the fact of racial inequality and oppression? developing class unity in a country with a multi-racial working class means that you have to take seriously the aims and struggles of the various groups that make up the working class. unity doesn' t happen automatically, due to abstract class position, but has to be developed in practice.

maybe the problem here is rooted in the WSP's abstract ideological approach.

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Tue Sep 11, 2007 01:13

ajohnstone says:
"i don't believe DaveB or anyone would dispute that the basis of his analysis is that of one of a Marxist - the materialistic conception of history - eg in Northern Ireland "...the culture of prejudice clearly has an economic origin..." but for Tom that is a crime in itself , it appears .

For Tom , the solution is " positive action such as developing programs " - reformism"

So, according to ajohnstone, any struggle to make any changes in society is "reformism." Apparently then all we're left to do is preach revolution. that is a recipe to be a tiny irrelevant sect.

the working class gains the consciousness and capacity and unity it needs to change the society and free itself only thru struggle. Collective struggle cannot initially be for revolution because people will only seek aims that they believe they have the power to attain, and the working class at present lacks the power to eliminate the dominating classes. Struggles take place around the immediate problems that the working class faces.

the working class in the USA is highly heterogeneous. this means that the problems or oppressions faced by different groups are not the same. the problems faced by women or by a black person or Latino immigrant are not the same as a native-born white male American worker. this is precisely why there is a point to struggles specifically around the forms of oppression that apply, such as against police brutality, whch affects especially communities of color, or against criminalization of immigrants. this leads also to organizations or movements rooted in communities of people subject to particular oppressions, such as African Americans or women or gay people (an example would be Pride at Work, a gay workers movement for equal rights at work).

it is only thru struggle that eventually the working class can work out its unity by coming to understand and accept the aims of the various groups of people that make it up.

in the '70s/'80s black and Latin construction workers in New York City banded together in groups like Harlem Fightback and other groups to break their racist exclusion from construction jobs. Groups of them invaded construction sites to press their case with contractors -- a direct action tactic called active shapeup. in some cases they had to arm themsevles with sticks and guns because some contractors had mob links. But for the abstract ideologists of the SPGB apparently this is to be derided as "reformist".

i explained how racist ideas in the white working class have a material basis in patterns of advantage, such as access to better paying jobs. I didn't use language like "crime in itself". ajohnstone is inventing a strawman.

if the SPGB agrees that racism has an explanation in material reality, then how can it be purely superstructural? how can it be merely ideology or bad ideas? if it has an "economic foundation" what is it? it's not just the interests of the employers because that would deny that there is in fact an immediate material benefit that white male workers get from having better access to the better paying jobs.

the solution here is to distinguish immediate shortrun material interests from the bigger picture of longrun class interests. white male workers may gain a bit more than their female or non-white compatriots by going along with the existing scheme, but they'd gain vastly more thru a unified working class movement which would have the potential to liberate the working class, or even make major shorter term gains.

by mitch - WSA (per. cap.) Tue Sep 11, 2007 16:16 wsany at hotmail dot com

Over the decades the question of whether or not anarchists believe reforms--any reforms---are of value or place us in the camp of social democracy.

I recently had the chance to read this article by Malatesta. Although I've had his works on my self for years I've never really had a chance to read him.

While this short article is not a major theoretical undertaking, I think it squarely addresses the question---and makes a case for both struggling to make today a little better, while fighting for the whole bakery in the future.

"Towards Anarchism" by Malatesta:

http://www.irational.org/sic/anarchism/malatesta.html

by Dave B - World Socialist Movement Tue Sep 11, 2007 22:15

A response to;

structural racism
by Tom Monday, Sep 10 2007, 7:07pm


There can nothing so tedious and tiresome with these kinds of discussions than for everyone to have to endure one of the adversaries having to endlessly repeat what he or she has said before because their opponent has not bothered to read or understand what they have written.

I said that;

“Once the ideology of racism for instance becomes institutionalised, for many of the more sincere and most dangerous bigots the original economic reason can be of little importance.

For them the prejudice probably satisfies another need of having an outlet and object for their repressed anger, frustration and sense of perceived humiliation as a result of living under capitalism’s worst effects. Commonly understood as scapegoating, kicking the cat, or in psychoanalytical terms ‘displacement’.

This in itself can be useful to the capitalist class in order to deflect blame from themselves and channel anger in a safer direction ie Germany in the 1930’s. Although in that case it got a little bit out of control.”


This idea of one or two reasons why racism can ‘persist’ after the first economic cause from which it originated has past is hardly unfamiliar. In fact it is so trite and hackneyed that I was concerned that it might seem patronising to even mention it.

How then can Tom respond by saying that I have;

‘a hard time explaining why racism persists’

when I did in fact explain how it could persist, is beyond me. It matters little in this respect whether or not you agree with the explanation or not. To imply that I did not or could not provide an explanation is demonstrably false.

I also never did say that racism was ‘just ideology’ as I thought I made clear that racism was typically an ideological justification for an economically based imperative.

It can be the case however that an ideology like racism can persist as just that and on its own, when there are no pure economic causes for it.

(Even though it may continue to serve other purposes related to the economic position of the working class.)

So in that sense it can be under some circumstances ‘just bad ideas in your head’, placed there, as some workers come to realise.

Another trite and hackneyed idea that seems to be unfamiliar to Tom.

An idea so trite and hackneyed in fact that it even appears and is expressed by semi fictional characters in Hollywood blockbuster films, picking a random example out of the ether;


Mississippi Burning (1988)

Mrs. Pell:” It's ugly. This whole thing is so ugly. Have you any idea what it's like to live with all this? People look at us and only see bigots and racists. Hatred isn't something you're born with. It gets taught. At school, they said segregation what's said in the Bible... Genesis 9, Verse 27. At 7 years of age, you get told it enough times, you believe it. You believe the hatred. You live it... you breathe it. You marry it. “

What should be an interesting fictional illustrative example as this is an example of a throwback or retro-superstructure ideological and biblical justification for the slave economy and racism itself in the United States.

And to state clearly again, the ruling class are also not immune to being infected by their own ideological bullshit and behaving appropriately, even though it maybe hurting them in their pocket or elsewhere. We could suspect therefore that the likes of John Kerry in the Vietnam may have believed in all the justifications for that economic adventure.

Perhaps even some of the chicken-hawks did as well, but for them it wouldn’t be that easy figuring out whether they had their heads screwed on correctly or were just cowards.

The class analysis of capitalism that all the working class are in the same economic position is no more abstract than the abolitionist position was that all slaves were slaves.


On affirmative action, the more ideologically liberated capitalists, who are free to concentrate on maximising the exploitation of labour power are affirming their economic necessity for free access to all sections of the working class, unimpeded by anachronistic ideologies.

The WSM position is an holistic one and requires and understanding of all the issues involved and the working class needs to learn to look carefully in the mouth of any gift horses that come along and beware of ‘Greek’ reformists bearing gifts.

by Tom - WSA (personal cap.) Wed Sep 12, 2007 06:25

dave B says: "I also never did say that racism was ‘just ideology’ as I thought I made clear that racism was typically an ideological justification for an economically based imperative. "

But this sentence itself directly implies that racism is "an ideological justification". but the idea of "structural racism" is that it isn't "an ideological justification".

and what is the "economic imperative" that racism is supposed to "justify"? economic interests of the dominating classes? but that would imply that white male workers gain no material benefit from being male and white.

so, here is the issue point blank: does dave or SPGB acknowledge that there are material advantages from being white in the USA? is there a pattern of inequality on the basis of "race"? all of dave's verbiage skirts around this question.

a pattern of material advantages based on race isn't an "ideologial jutification". racism as an ideology may try to justify this pattern of inequality, but it isn't identical with the system or pattern of material advantage. this pattern of inequality isn't the same thing as class inequality because it isn't based on class.

now, i would agree that it is in the interests of white workers to band together with workers of all colors to develop a movement to fight the bosses, and to get rid of the class system altogether. that's because the gains to white workers from a unified movement are potentially much greater than any material advantages within the current pattern of white supremacy.

by dave B Thu Sep 13, 2007 00:26

Hi Tom

Well at least we have reached some kind of consensus with your last point although I would wish to phrase it differently, perhaps something like;

That it is in the interests of all workers to band together, irrespective of colour or whatever else, to develop a movement to get rid of the class system and establish a socialist or perhaps as a concession an anarcho-communist society.

That's because the gains to all workers from a socialist society would be much greater than any material advantages that one group can obtain at the expense of another within capitalism.

The issue of workers uniting within capitalism in order to obtain as many economic concessions as possible is a separate one and part of trade union consciousness. Many workers are quite familiar with the idea that when they are divided upon whatever lines they are much less able to collectively resist the encroachments of capital. As it can selectively play one section of workers off against another and pick them off one by one.


On the issue of the nature of ideology or just ideas or opinions on issues, I think to say that this is a difficult subject would be more than an understatement.


Forgetting racism for a bit, and going back to discussing basic ideas.

The difference between an ‘ideology’ and an ‘ideological justification’ is a bit like the difference between a lie and the truth.

Without wanting to get too philosophical about the definition of the word ideology and getting dragged into some Descartes type argument about the nature of subjectivity.

People who hold onto a set of ideas believe them to be true, irrespective of whether they are or not, otherwise they would not hold onto them. Thus they are ideology or from a collins dictionary; a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs of a nation or political system etc.



An ideological justification ie propaganda is not true for those that propagate it nor is it true for those that can see through it. The idea that is put across by the propagandist is a lie for the propagandist and the truth for those that believe it. It is a ideological justification for an action using a set of false ideas for one and an ideology or truth for the other.

The actual propaganda itself, to begin with anyway, is not the ideology of the ruling class that are putting it forward as they know it is bollocks.

Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda put it well enough;

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can
shield the people from the political, economic and/or military
consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to
use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the
greatest enemy of the State."


How this works in reality is a bit more complex because for some reason or other most humans seem to have an innate dislike to this kind of reasoning plainly put by Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels. So what happens when capitalist class wishes to invade Iraq for nefarious reasons that can barely be admitted is that well funded think tanks develop ideological justifications for such action. For large sections of the American working class who still believe that Saddam flew planes into the world trade centre this becomes ideology. For a select few who know better, them and us, it is just an ideological justification.

For the not unimportant group in the middle who wish to believe in what is useful to them and understand the advantages of burying yourself in the part and loosing yourself the issue of whether it is ideology or ideological justification is less clear.


However in this case an ideology and an ideological justification, eg Saddam flying planes into the World Trade Centre, can coexist as the same thing but meaning two things, a self-serving lie to one and the truth to another.

Once the need to tell this lie disappears there are no longer any lies and ideological justification and all that remains is a belief in an idea. Albeit a belief in something that was never true for the people who first originated the idea.


The situation is made more complicated by the fact of why the ruling class needs to make ideological justifications in the first place. It is because the current ideology including morality and what is right and wrong etc stands in the way or opposes what the ruling class want to do to enrich themselves. Even the morality or ideology of the ruling class themselves, who may not be as gifted with the clear thinking of a Machiavelli or a Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, may struggle with their own conscience when it comes to doing what they want to do, and profitable behaviour.

One problem for slave industry was some of the bloody awkward Christians like Harriet Beecher Stowe, who seemed to take certain parts of the Gospels too literally. These kind of people were part of the retro superstructure and the ideology that reacts back as Engels stated. Christianity was supposed to be about keeping the labouring class compliant not about treating human beings made in the image of god worse than animals.

So hard nosed practical men of the world with a ‘capitalist outlook’ got their paid theologians to drag out mumbo jumbo quotes from the ‘world was made in seven days book’ to provide an ideological justification for slavery.

An idea that persisted in a slightly different form long after or not long after the reason for its introduction by the slave owning class had disappeared.

The valid question remains whether or not the working class uses racism or religious bigotry as an ideological justification for the economically advantageous oppression of another section of the working class. Or whether or not it is just bad ideas put into their heads for other reasons. You would have to take it I think on a case by case basis.

Ideology itself is not black and white as belief systems can be held with varying levels of conviction and can be emotive as well as rational.

Talking to intelligent ‘leftwing’ people who have been infected with this kind of thing when they are pissed can be instructive. So a ‘Sikh’ can babble on about how evil the Muslims are because of something the Moguls did 500 years ago and a ‘Northern Ireland Protestant’ can go on about people being under the sway of foreign Romish bishops with evil designs. They all know its bollocks and bad ideas in their heads and probably have never had the idea, rational or otherwise, of putting it to or taking any kind of economic advantage out of it.


There are material advantages from being white in the USA but is that what really motivates the racists, taking material advantage of them or is it just hate. Many would like to see these races ‘sent back to where they came from’, evacuated from the planet or even exterminated at considerable material expense.

Taking material advantage out of people is the ideology of capitalism and the capitalist class and that is from where it normally originates.

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Thu Sep 13, 2007 19:01

after a huge amount of irrelevant verbiage dave finally answers my question: "There are material advantages from being white in the USA but is that what really motivates the racists".

because the material interests of all members of the working class are not identical, there are likely to emerge movements or struggles specific to non-class forms of oppression, which affect particular groups of people, such as African-Americans or women.

the motivation of racists isn't what this thread is about. the issue is support for movements or struggles around non-class forms of oppression, and the relationship of these movements/struggles to the working class.

I don't think there can be class unity unless the struggles around non-class forms of oppression gain support and are part of the working class movement.

by dave B Fri Sep 14, 2007 02:13

If you choose to concentrate your efforts on single issue campaigns and levelling the playing field within capitalism for the labouring class rather than getting rid of the capitalist system , then do so, there are plenty to choose from.

If I was to adopt your approach, which I don’t, I am sure I could find more deserving causes to choose from than the one of raising the affluent economic advantages that African-Americans or women have over the rest of the international labouring class to that of the white American males.

So you go ahead and struggle on in your noble cause so that African-Americans can have equal access to dental care as your white American brothers. Whilst capitalism trundles on and real African children go blind for the want of a starbucks coffee.

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Sat Sep 15, 2007 00:55

okay, dave, do you regard all struggles of working people as "single issue"? suppose people go on strike for a wage increase? Is this a "