Poor White Racism

Tuesday, May 22 2001 @ 03:15 PM CDT

Contributed by: Admin

Submitted by Chuck0:

By Shawn Ewald

A reply to "A Question of Privilege"

http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vb/wd8priv.html

Hi John,

This is actually something worth discussing, problem is, both sides only
have it half right. To clarify, the two sides are those who take the
"heirarchy of oppression" view and those, like the author below, who take
the "while it's true some people are more oppressed than others squabling
over who's more oppressed is not going to get us anywhere"...etc.
Actually, I should say that these are the two viewpionts that are the
closest to actually being contructive viewpoints, as there are other
viewpoints on racism besides these which I'd rather not go into.

The thing is, most working-class and poor whites are indeed oppressed but
most of them are also racist -- this is the real stumbling block between
the two above mentioned views meeting somewhere in the middle. Among the
most honest people who hold these two viewpoints you can get agreement
that the statement "most working-class and poor whites are indeed
oppressed but most of them are also racist" is 100% true. However,
niether side wants to do anything about this, they want to sweep one part
or the other of that statement under the rug.

The fact of poor white oppression and the fact of poor white racism is
why I totally disagree with Lorenzo Komboa Ervin -- it's not impoverished
blacks that will determine whether we have a revolution in this county,
it's impoverished whites. What is or is not done about impoverished
whites and poor white racism is what will determine whether we have
revolution or fascism in this country. I'm not talking about poor whites
"leading" the revolution or being the "vangaurd" (which is how Lorenzo
sees the role of impoverished blacks), I'm talking about whether poor and
working class whites will participate in a revolution or wether they will
be the footsoldiers for reaction and the destruction of any possibility
for revolution at all.

This just doesn't go for revolutionaries it goes for reformists too, it
also just doesn't go for the US, it goes for all of North America and all
of Europe and Australia. The whole of the left ignores or shuns the
problem of the white poor and working class at their peril.

The situation of poor and working-class whites is an object lesson in the
principle that most people tend to take the path of least resistance. The
situation of poor and working-class whites is this: They are being fucked
and most of them know it and many of them partially have the correct idea
about *who* is actually fucking them, however, they also are willing to
accept that people of color are either partly or *totally* responsible
for their situation. Why? Because it's fucking easy. It is easier to beat
up on a black man than it is to beat up on capitalism. It is easier to
lynch a person of color than it is to actually *do* something about your
own situation. Nevermind lynching and beating, it is easier to simply
hate other people who are in the same situation as you (like a drowning
rat taking other rats down in a vain attempt to save itself) than hate,
in anything other than an impotent way, the system that is actually
responsible for your own situation.

I grew up in this kind of environment. I grew up in highly racist poor
white or mostly white neighborhoods and there is nothing to romanticize
about these people (there is absolutely *nothing* romantic about being
poor, regardless of your skin color, in itself, by the way) but I do have
a great deal of sympathy for these people because I understand them to
some degree.

Most of my childhood friends are either dead, been in and out of prison,
or fried their brains on drugs. In terms of shallow material success,
I've done very well for myself, all by myself. I'm light years away from
the way I lived growing up. I'm now undeniably middle class, yet I
haven't forgotten where I started. I wanted get away from that
environment for most of my life and now I want to understand it, because
I think it's very important that it is understood.

In order to put and end to poor white racism, you have to understand the
situation of poor whites. You do not learn how a gun works by inspecting
bullet holes, you inspect the gun. The gun metaphor is very appropriate
for poor white racism, because poor white racism is a mindless weapon.
Someone else is pulling the trigger.

Let's start by taking a look at something obvious, Nazi recuitment of
white working class youth. I never knew anyone who was a Nazi bonehead
when I was a kid, but I did know people who were in general sympathetic
to Nazi groups. What kept them from becoming complete sympathizers was
that the Nazis were "too extreme", they hated *everybody*, whereas the
sympathizer "just hated blacks", for example. Why? Because they lived
near black people and saw them as a threat. This kind of attitude is
typical. Although people who are racists are in reality universally
racist, there are nonetheless gradations to their bigotry and there are
often only one or two racial or ethnic groups that they will openly admit
to being bigoted against, and those groups are, almost without exception,
groups that the racist sees as being a direct threat to thier way of life
or well being. This sense of a threat has nothing to do with the
geographical proximity of the hated group(s) to the hater, by the way,
though it does often play a role.

This kind of racism is unique from the garden variety racism that is
typical of ,say, the middle class or upper classes (i.e. the kind of
racism that has at least the potential to be remedied by the kind of
therapy group work that people like Chris Crass devote all their time
to). Garden variety racism comes from a presumed, mostly unconscious
sense of superiority, which is reenforced by the dominant culture, of
course. Even certain kinds of "anti-racism" are really just
manifestations of this garden variety racism (i.e. "I'm such a big-
hearted white boy for 'helping' those poor people of color"). However,
the kind of racism I'm talking about is an active, often obsessive,
*assertion* of superiority stemming from an acute sense of powerlessness.
It's the kind of racism that built the third reich, it's the kind of
racism that is the glue that holds this system in place.

Nazi groups in particular have what would seem to be an extremely
palatable message to offer poor whites: 1) racism and 2) a kind of pseudo-
socialism. So, why aren't there literally *millions* of Nazis right now?
They have put *one thousand times* more effort into organizing in poor
and working class white communities than the entire left combined, yet
have little to show for it. I assure you its not the pseudo-socialistic
aspects of Nazism that poor whites object to, it is in fact the racism,
specifically the *universal* racism of the Nazis. In an incredibly
bizarre (but no less valuable) sense, the fact that poor white people
won't join the Nazis because they "too racist" can be looked at as a sign
of hope. It is also a demonstration that racism is not some "uncurable
disease". It is not natural, it has clear causes and fairly clear
remedies.

Just as avoiding the issue of racism is a cop out, making semi-mystical
claims that racism is an uncurable disease that we may never be rid of,
is also a cop out, it allows people to relinquish their responisbility
for stoping it, it also allows people in the white left to shirk the
hard, ugly, unpleasant, and often unrewarding work of *really* trying to
put an end to racism amongst white people in general.

Racism, like rape, is fundamentally about power. Poor white racism is
both a conscious and an unconscious false expression of power by a
powerless group over an even more powerless group. Can we all agree on
that much?

Now let's take a look at how anti-racism is actually dealt with by the
white left in general (not just by so-called radicals) and let me give
you the perceptions of poor whites on left anti-racism from my own
experience. Throughout the white left -- be it ARA or your local peace
and justice center or even liberal politicians -- dealing with racism has
historically been about dealing with racism's symptoms (even when it
actually has dealt with its causes). The image of pissing against the
wind comes to mind when I think of the anti-racism work of the white
left.

The greatest advances for people of color in this country have come
through their own efforts, both through reformism and through
revolutionary activity, and not really through anything the white left
did. The white left has indeed played a supporting role to the struggles
of people of color and many have laid their lives on the line in support
of the struggles of people of color. However, one of the most crucial
roles that the white left should have played all along is ending racism
among whites. Please note that I said *ending* racism, not fighting it.
Fighting racism is what the white left does best, in fact, when it comes
to racism fighting racism is about all the white left does -- and all it
will ever do if something doesn't change.

The gains that people of color have made for themselves are actually
gains that benefit *everyone*, yet this fact has been lost on poor and
working class whites. I think the blame for this can be laid at the feet
of the white left in general. In order to have a lasting end to racism
and any hope for revolutionary change you have to take a two prong
strategy of 1) supporting the struggles of people of color and 2) doing
anti-racist education among white people.

The first part of this strategy is where the white left has done its best
work (in fact, it's where its done any work at all). As for the second
part of this strategy, not only has the white left not done much in the
area of anti-racist education among whites, it has actually *shunned*
poor and working class whites because of thier racism. The fact that many
poor whites view themselves as being "abandoned" by the *entire left*,
the fact that many poor whites think the *entire left* does nothing for
them should be a great cause for concern if we are serious about *ending
racism* and making revolutionary change.

When I talk about anti-racist education, I am not talking about activist
therapy groups -- it is important that activists deal with thier own
racism and sexism, however, it is worse than useless if you do not take
what you've learned out into the *real world*. I'm sorry, but people who
devote their time exclusively to this are engaging in "cake work" -- its
easy to deal with these issues when the people you're dealing with are
already more than willing to meet you half-way. An anti-racist, anti-
sexist subculture is still a subculture. When you're changing the minds
of apolitical white working class racists, then we'll be getting
somewhere.

But the view that the left has abandoned poor whites is a view held by
real flesh and blood people. It may not be a view we like to hear or even
care about, but it will not just go away and you should care about it.
What is the white left going to do to change that view? What is the white
left going to do about making white people in general understand that the
struggles of people of color are tied up with thier own struggles?

The real reason why white leftists don't want to deal with poor white
racism is because it's a class thing. The left in general is
predominantly middle class and the white left specifically is most
certainly middle class. Even most of those in the white left who come
from working class origins end up adopting the middle class values of the
left in general. From my obeservations of attending activist anti-racism
workshops I see people of the same class talking amongst themselves and
when there is a presence of poor and working class whites in the group,
the typical response is to "shout down the prole". This is not exactly
what I'd term "education". Education is partly about showing people where
and why they are mistaken in what they believe, not simply enforcing a
particular viewpoint on people through intimidation and peer pressure,
which makes us no better than Nazi recuiters.

Because the white left is largely middle class we end up with the
spectacle of white suburban ARA youth fighting white working class
skinheads. We have the oddity of having white activists dealing with
thier own racism, or insisting that "everyone is oppressed", but refusing
to organize in poor white communities because those communities are
racist and sexist. Some people understand the value of doing anti-racism
work in white communities but they also know that to organize in those
comunities is just too fucking hard and takes *real* work, and middle
class white leftists have no ability to engage these people on a level
that poor whites can relate to, it is much easier to steer clear of this
work and navel gaze -- talk about taking the path of least resistance!

I found a good demonstration of this dynamic while attending the recent
anarchist bookfair in Montreal. Two friends of mine wish to move up to
Montreal from upstate New York and live in the small city of Verdun
(which is on the outskirts of Montreal) and do political work there.
Verdun is a predominantly white working class town, it has a high
incidence of domestic violence and tends toward the reactionary "Partie
Quebecois" wing of the Quebecois self-determination movement. It seems
that the activist community in Montreal do not want to touch Verdun with
a ten foot pole and many have expressed surprise that my friends whould
want to actually live there or do activist work there.

The point being made was essentially: "we want to stop racism,
patriarchy, and nationalism, but those backwards white trash creeps in
Verdun can go rot in hell". This totally counterproductive attitude is
not at all unique to Montreal, this attitude is a real problem on the
left throughout North America.

Ironically, probably the best anti-racism workshop I've ever attended
happened at the bookfair that day. It was conducted by people of color,
including the recently released Jaggi Singh, and after some initial
comments from the panel, the workshop changed into a very interesting
group discussion amongst a multiracial audience.

One of the points raised in this workshop is one that is often raised:
white people need to do anti-racism work among white people. The
difference, this time, in the expression of this message was the
implication that doing anti-racism work does not end at doing anti-racism
work in the white, middle class activist milleu.

There absoulutely needs to be more people doing work in communities like
Verdun all over North America. However, simply being anti-racist
missionaries is not going to get you anywhere, you'll have to actually
*do* something for these people and deeply incorporate anti-racism into
the work you do there. You don't have to like them but you are going to
have to deal with them. The fact of the matter is we are going to need
these people if revolutionary change is to become any kind of
possibility. And, make no mistake, capitalism needs them also to serve as
agents of repression (thier own and everyone elses). The question is
who's side will they be on in the end. It's up to the white left to make
sure they're on our side.

Share

Poor White Racism | 48 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

comment by Mike Hargis

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2001 @ 01:26 PM CDT

I couldn\'t agree more. But what, exactly, does doing \"anti-racist\" work in white working class communities mean? Some suggestions from the author would be in order.

comment by

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2001 @ 02:49 PM CDT

I think that you misunderstood Lorenzo. I don\'t think that he feels that the black working class (as if that were a homogenous group) will be the vangaurd that will lead us all to anarchist communalism. Rather, I think that Lorenzo believes that the black working class must organize themselves and determine how they shall live by themselves, not by being led around by urban, white intellectuals in their 20 somethings. Revolutionary black workers could probably only succeed in achieving liberation in certain regions. If it is going to be long term and stable, revolutionaries of all races must assist each other and defend one another from the ruling class and their authorities.

comment by Shawn Ewald

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2001 @ 04:46 PM CDT

Hi Mike and the unnamed person rasing points about Lorenzo Ervin...

First about the my comments about Lorenzo, I agree with everything you say in terms of your analysis of what Lorenzo means and about long term and stable revolutionary change. However, you must admit that some of Lorenzo\'s ideas about black liberation are quite simply suicidal -- I agree with Lorenzo\'s goals, but some of his ideas about getting there really make me fearful for the well being of black communities who follow some of his proscriptions to the letter, just on the obvious basis that the black community is outnumbered and outgunned in this country. What I\'m basically suggesting is that whites can best help Lorenzo and others reach their objectives by getting those guns (both real and metaphorical) that are aimed at people of color turned around and pointed at the correct targets. I admit I could have phrased my point in a way that made that more clear.

Now, to Mike\'s question about how to do anti-racism work in white communities. That\'s a tough question since I\'m not aware of any historical examples of the kind of work that resembles what I\'m talking about -- which is actually really disturbing.

I think the first thing that one has to do is come to those communities with something to offer, do work in those communities that actually benefits those communities. Build trust and, as you build trust, educate. Use the opportunity to show paralells with the situation of people of color and show how solidarity with people of color is in thier interest. This is going to be complicated and hard work. Even if this isn\'t a new frontier, it certainly seems like it and I think those of us who see the value in doing this kind of work need to help each other out to develop strategies to accomplish this.

All I can really say at this point is that I think this kind of work needs to be done and I am completely open to suggestions on how to do it effectively.

Shawn

comment by pete

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2001 @ 10:56 PM CDT

i agree with some of what shawn said but also have some pretty big disagreements.

i disagree with the \'leftist missionary\' approach, the idea that the \'middle class\' white activist left has to do stuff for working class whites. people are quite capable of organising themselves, they don\'t need the left to organise them. in a time of very low overt class struggle the attraction of this approach is understandable but it\'s still wrong.

following french left communist gilles dauve i\'d say that the proletariat is divided because it\'s weak not weak because it\'s divided. the return of mass class struggle will do much more to end racism than any amount of leftist organising of the poor, unfortunately mass class struggle cannot be bought into existence by the left no matter how active. i\'d say the best that we can do right now is have our own successful struggles (such as Quebec City) and hope that the good example will inspire others to launch their own struggles.

the dauve work i got some of these ideas from is at:

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/fasant11.htm

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2001 @ 03:34 PM CDT

Pete,

I\'m sorry, but that\'s just crazy. Do think that the working class will magically become militant radicals all by themselves? It took *60 YEARS* of organizing by the Spanish Anarchists to arrive at the conditions that created the Spanish Revolution. Things don\'t just happen by themselves people make them happen.

Furthermore, it\'s very easy for white people (I assume you\'re white) to say that we can all wait until the historical conditions are right and racism will vanish all by itself. Meanwhile, people of color are being killed and imprisoned and victimized on a daily basis by the white working class. I would guess that people of color are pretty damn tired of waiting for white people to stop victimizing them.

And lastly, about the \"leftist missionary\" comment -- I precicely said that just being an *anti-racist missionary* will get you nowhere you have to actually *do * something for these white poor and working class communities, you have to build their trust which will cause them to value your opinions. You don\'t come as \"missionaries\", you come to be part of those communities and you come to change those communities by being a part of them.

Shawn

comment by joe

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2001 @ 05:09 PM CDT

Shawn,

I have been really discouraged by a lot of what has been written on infoshop about racism and what to do....I really appreciate all you have said...your ideas have been long needed...
thanks
joe

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2001 @ 11:47 PM CDT

shawn

yes i do think the working class will become revolutionary by themselves. Proletarian struggles within capitalism to be successful even in fairly limited ways practically have to attack capital as a whole not just unfair aspects of it. There\'s nothing magical about that. I reject the leninist idea that seems to be shared by a lot of anarchists that the working class needs to have \'socialist\' consciousness injected into it from outside.

As for Spain, the 60 years of organising still led them to failure and the revolution came because of Franco\'s coup not because revolutionaries decided the time was right.

yes i am white, in the chance it might be relevant i\'ll mention i\'m australian. racism here is quite different to that in the US. of course racism is fucked and hurts a lot of people. but it\'s the US state that does most damage to black people not Nazis. white racism obviously helps the US state get away with its racist policies but in the abscence of a large black movement against official racism there is probably not much revolutionaries can do. While forces that attempt to divide the proletariat along the lines of race or anything else need to be confronted, in the abscence of mass class struggle the struggle against racism and fascism will have to be conducted again and again.

As to the missionary stuff the point is that you think revolutionaries need to organise poor whites. that to me is a missionary approach however it is done. and do you think that poor whites are going to pay much attention to the middle class left you so deride. they get enough shit at work or wherever from people of a similar cultural background.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2001 @ 07:30 AM CDT

Pete,

What you suggest above contradicts the *entire* history of the anarchist movement. People have gone amongst the working class and have either done educational or outright organizing work to build movements for the entire history of the left. To claim that doing organizing of any kind is de facto \"Leninist\" is to say that organizing labor unions is \"Leninist\" doing community work is \"Leninist\", organizing demonstrations is \"Leninist\". And this has nothing to do with class, working class people are just as capable of organizing as anyone.

Your claim that the working class will become radical all by themselves contradicts reality to such a degree that I have to seriously wonder if your just taking the piss, r am I misunderstanding you?

Is your problem just with non-working class people going into working class communities to organize and not with the idea of organizing the working class itself? If that\'s the case, fair enough, but where are there working class organizers? One only finds, for the most part, effective working class organizers in communities of color in this country, there aren\'t alot of white working class organizers here (maybe in the labor movement, but that\'s about it). I would much rather have effective middle class organizers do work in working class communities in a non-cendescending way that gets results than have *no one* doing organizing work in these communities.

As for your remark about attacking only unfair aspects of capitalism, you are arguing against something I never said. And, by the way, is not *everything* about capitalism unfair or have I missed something? As I said in my article above: racism is the glue that holds this system together. Racism and sexism need to be combatted directly or we will have no movement worth talking about. A movement against capitalism that is divided by racism and sexism will go nowhere -- these are not side issues that can be dealt with later and they will not magically disappear when everyone becomes a good little revolutionary.

Shawn

comment by Joe Government

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2001 @ 11:45 AM CDT

If you think there\'s a difference between middle class and working class, you\'ve fallen for the capitalist media\'s attempt at divide and conquer. If you work, you\'re in the working class. If you don\'t work and live off those who do by \"owning\" the company, you\'re in the capitalist class. That\'s it.

Organizing the working class is organizing your own class.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2001 @ 09:51 PM CDT

Shawn

this is getting a bit boring. but anyway.

on the history of the anarchist movement, well who cares at best it\'s been heroic failures like Spain. despite remaining opposed to capital and the state i don\'t really think of myself as an anarchist any more but rather an autonomist marxist. the big proletarian revolts of recent decades have been mostly independent of unions and leftist political groups. eg France Dec 95. i\'m not saying organising is leninist, rather it\'s the idea that the working class needs socialist consciousness injected into it from small political groups is leninist an idea that you seem to agree with.

the working class have become radical all by themselves many times without or even against condescending leftists. sure it hasn\'t happened much lately but it will happen again.

your idea seems to be that some clever organisers move into working class communities and dream up clever demands that people can be recruited around. which even if successful will still leave barriers between the activists and the \'workers\'. the point isn\'t that said organisers aren\'t working class but that they relate to their fellow workers as \'other\' as people who have to be organised by them.

the stuff about \'unfair\' aspects of capitalism was part of my argument about how workers struggles within capitalism lead to struggles against capitalism. I disagree that racism is the glue that holds the system together. as i said earlier the proletariat is divided because it\'s weak not the other way round, when it is strong again (ie attacking capital) then the divisions will diminish. racism and sexism do need to be confronted now but i just don\'t expect too much success in that area until there is mass class struggle.

comment by 000

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2001 @ 04:35 AM CDT

What middle class? 90%- 95% of the world is working class.
let\'s get to organizen\' and teaching the basics\'
anti racism, anti capitalism, libertarian mutual aid and equality....
organize by phone by fax, by e-mail by web board in person with your family, your friends your co- workers...
lets go out and turn people on to anarchism even if they think that they are middle class!

http://www.dnai.com/~figgins/generalstrike/

comment by idlehands

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2001 @ 10:10 AM CDT

Shawn

good essay. I was at the bookfair workshop last weekend, and I thought it was pretty good, although I have my issues with the standard Marxist analysis of racism. racism precedes class divides, and the gendered division of labour precedes even that. Sure, capitalism uses them to divide the workforce, but that doesn\'t mean that it will go away once we \"take over the means of production\".

A \"question of privilege\" ignores lots of important details around levels of exploitation.
If you grow up with money, and society treats you with more respect because you\'re white and male, you\'ve got an edge, and that edge too easily makes you a \"leader\" see Michael Albert for a good example of such. So giving up that privilege is part of being anarchist.

I\'m sick of the simple minded analysis of class, too. All of history is not the history of class struggle, goddammit! It is, perhaps, the history of struggle, but the lines need not be defined by economic categories. what about the vast middle class that both works and owns stock in companies and mutual funds? Are they workers or capitalists? Are they exploited or exploiting? but I digress

comment by Valentine Wiggin

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2001 @ 12:29 PM CDT

Ah, I smell a von Mises fan.

Until the working class owns all the stock in their companies, they are being exploited.

The capitalist gives his workers a few shares so he can justify his exploitation by letting them \"share\" in the exploitation. It\'s like me taking $100 from you, and then giving you $50 back - wow, am I generous or what?

comment by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2001 @ 02:14 PM CDT

Poor White Racism: This is an important dialog to nourish. My own experience growing up poor white, plus 10 years as a blue color assembly line worker and low-level clerical worker, then two more
decades of trying to organize poor and working class whites, I have come to the conclusion
that it is wrong headed to consider organizing in poor white COMMUNITIES. I am convinced
that white working class people can be organized on an anti-sexist, anti-racist,
anti-imperialist, anti-nationalist, and even pro-anarcho/socialist basis, but only OUTSIDE
the setting of the white \"communities.\" The three obvious places are (1) junior colleges,
tech colleges, and universities (like the CSU system in California), (2) in the workplace
or the unemployed, and (3) in the armed forces.

I know for a fact, about myself and anyone else who grew up poor or working class in the
USA--guilt-tripping will never work, nor the notion of \"white-skin privilege\". Nor will
calls to further economic benefits or self-interest work. And on the whole, white poor
and working class people must be organized young, at least before age 25. What will work,
believe it or not, is a message of justice and dignity, human rights, and revolution, and a
real struggle without condescension and patronizing. If you believe you are a better
person for being an anarchist or socialist of some sort, with a vision of a better world,
why would you think that others might not welcome such a goal if it were presented to them?

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2001 @ 04:22 PM CDT

I really like the idea of organizing in the army...but how? Do you know of any good examples of people that have done it successfully?

On a related note, does anyone have ideas for doing anti-racist work in small towns. I was the only person of colour in my high school, and one of maybe 5 radicals, so I\'m curious about how to be an activist of colour working on anti-racist issues within a fully white community.

regarding exploitation. I agree there is such a thing as exploitation, but I don\'t think Marx got it right, beyond even the problems with the labour theory of value. There are some neat ideas floating around about how to revamp it, but even they are a bit hamstrung by this entire labour theory bit.

Using your example: how does a capitalist \"take\" a 100$ from you. Is it because your labour was worth 100$? If so, how do you know that before the capitalist sells it for market price?

I prefer thinking about exploitation as rent incurred due to power imbalances. Then I can explain the exploitation of people of colour and women, as well as workers, and it makes power central, not economics. Which seems like a more anarchist way of proceeding....

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2001 @ 12:16 PM CDT

> how do you know that before the capitalist
> sells it for market price?

Now isn\'t this silly? Is the capitalist really selling it? No, employees both make and sell. The difference is that after whatever product or service was sold, the employee doesn\'t keep the money himself, but hands it over to the capitalist. The capitalist doesn\'t need to be part of the equation at all. Money comes from customers. Work comes from employees. That simple.

It must be hard trying to pretend to be an anarchist huh? Come on, why don\'t you come out and say what you really think? Go ahead, use a different name, like \"John Galt\" or something. Don\'t worry, I don\'t bite.

comment by margaret

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 27 2001 @ 09:10 PM CDT

Good discussion. It was interesting on our national radio today to hear an academic from ? Manchester University? talking in the wake of the \'race riots\' in Oldham yesterday. He was naming a) the politicians who are riding the \'race card\'; & the media including \'Rupert Murdoch\' & the Sun who use imagery of \'savages\'during the Australian experience of acknowledging the Aboriginal \'lost child\' & land loss experience. They also encouraged xenophobic debate in port cities such as Dover around illegal immigrants who are \'swamping our island state\' & \'competing with those of us who belong here\' who however were happy to run editorials when South Africa was exploring democracy under Mandella about \'offering our white brethern refuge here.\'
In my mind the \'bridge at the top of the cliff\' are 1) the political leaders 2) the institutions including education who do not \'name & engage with the problem & 3) the media who offer simplistic stories sans context
Margaret

comment by greentrash420

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2001 @ 06:17 PM CDT

You\'re right that many poor working class whites are racist but you ignore the fact that many poor working class blacks are at least as racist, if not more so. Check the Cincinatti Riots. That was definitely a race riot no matter what anyone says. For example a light skinned black woman was beaten until someone said \'Stop, she\'s black\' and when they realized she wasn\'t white they stopped. White communists who tried to join the \'protest\' were brutally beaten. White women were pulled from cars and raped. The whole \'protest\' was organized by the New Black Panther Party, which is virulently anti-white and anti-jewish and has nothing to do with the original BPP. The reason poor people, both black and white, are more racist is that they have less \'diverse\' cultures, and therefore feel they have more of a culture to protect. I would reccommend for you guys to read \'The Redneck Manifesto\' by Jim Goad, but it\'s probably too blunt and politically incorrect for you guys to stomach.

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2001 @ 08:16 PM CDT

Oh, those crazy black \"racist\" savages, eh?

I\'m sure that riot had nothing at all to do with the 15 black people being murdered in the six months prior to the riot. The fact that they are shit on and humiliated on a daily basis by the police. If you were a black person living in Cincy or South Central LA, etc., you\'d hate white people too.

And those communist got exactly what they deserved. They were stupid arrogant fucks that came into that place presuming they were going to lead some kind of revolution.

Furthermore, the fradulent New Black Panther Party had about as much to do with starting that uprising as those white commies did.

The difference between Blacks hating Whites and Whites hating Blacks is that we are the majority, there is absolutely *no* racist level playing field here. Your assertion is bullshit.

BTW, I\'ve read Jim Goad\'s book and he seems more interested in absolving poor white people of their role as footsoldiers for fascism than really addressing the issue of racism. The entire history of this country flies in the face of the notion that Black \"racism\" can in any way be equated with White racism.

Shawn

comment by pkf

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2001 @ 01:09 PM CDT

the funny thing is that you guys seem to be under the impression that non-suburban whites need your help, like you holy light-bearing suburbanite anarchists are going to go down to the trailer parks and heal the redneck heathens. more like you need their help, they are organized into fully decentralised militias, they are heavily armed, they often have military experience, they have the right enemies (elitists, the state), they are driven by the cause of liberty and the vast majority of them are non-racist. you guys do a better job at the anti-corporate thing than they do, but they do a better job at the anti-state thing. instead of proselytizing them with your philosophy and trying to convert them you should just work along side them and hopefully the good aspects of both sides will rub off on each other.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2001 @ 06:31 PM CDT

Amen.

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 03 2001 @ 04:35 AM CDT

PKF,

You sound like one of the suburbanites you so deride -- you obviously know nothing about the \"rednecks\" you praise. I lived in trailer parks and and poor urban neighborhoods and, unless they had some secret society that I didn\'t know about, I never saw these wonderful organized radical anti-racist trailer park dwellers you claim exist. I saw quite a bit of casual racism, quite a bit of domestic violence and general sexism, and quite a lot of violent macho horseshit.

Facing reality is a good thing not a bad thing. Glorifying people that you know nothing about does nothing to bring about revolutionary change. Are there white working class anti-racists? There certainly are. Are there radical poor and working class white people? Absolutely. Are most poor and working class whites like this? HELL NO!

Maybe you would like to explain to me how it is wrong for a person of any class to move into a poor white community and organize (in an open and non-condescending way) a tennants union and do anti-racism education while organizing that tennants union? As I mentioned in my rant: being missionaries will not work. You have to come into those communities and relate to them as equals. You have to come in there being humble with a desire to learn as well as teach.

Oh, and getting back to the militia thing, don\'t believe the hype. The militia movement is a profoundly *middle class* movement. Most of those people are disgruntled middle managers and petty capitalists -- most certainly their leadership is that way. Occasionally, they get a few working class saps to join their little play-time commando troop. And, excuse me? You say they are \"driven by the cause of liberty\"??? Their idea of liberty is Xtian patriarchy. They aren\'t against the state, they are against the *current* state. Don\'t be fooled -- or be a fool, as the case may be.

Shawn

comment by pkf pisspuff

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2001 @ 03:52 PM CDT

Wrong. Most militiamen are libertarian, but an ever increasing amount are shifting to libertarian socialism (anarchism) as they realize that rich elitists psess most of the power in society.

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2001 @ 05:29 PM CDT

PKF,

Please cite some examples of these libertarian socialist, working-class militias> Just telling me I\'m wrong doesn\'t make it so.

Shawn

comment by Jon

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2001 @ 03:37 PM CDT

This is so dead on, a discussion that needs to happen on a wider level.
A couple observations:
It\'s easy to address race class whatever in a superficial way but it doesn\'t really accomplish anything, and the anxieties of middle class radicals keep them from actually doing practicial work or making pracitical connections (most relationships between whites and people of color seem to contain a wierd imperialist/missionary aspect). Imagine how much more effective those of us who\'ve abandoned our roots in favor of activist clques would be if we returned to them, to people we have some influence and pull with and to areas that radicals abandoned like rats on a sinking ship.

The White working class seems to be a myth to most middle class radicals, even if they did exist because of white mClass guilt they\'re given the bottom wrung on the twisted hierarchy of oppression that academics have created, and ignored. It\'s these same people who love to chant class war and will turn around and dis someone as white trash. There\'s a strong influence in radical circles to (as Chuck0 deftly pointed out) conform to middle class values. I know I find myself questioning the activist community and what worth I have in organizing revolution in an area i didn\'t grow up in and which I have less experience with, while nazis and right wing bigots are busy organizing white working class people.
anyway, I think this is a great discussion. I hope to read more. as far as the questions about how to reach out to the white working class, and how it\'s impossible, please, are we so intillectual that we can\'t make some posters and put them up for starters, start talking to people, bringing projects newspapers, god damn we don\'t always need to have a demonstration, first we need to get people interested in these simple practical ways.
Peace

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2001 @ 06:05 PM CDT

RE: The Cincinnati Rebellion

While some white people were attacked during the Cincinnati rebellion, most of this happened by pockets of people not actually involved with the rebellion. If you were down there and had talked with people (both white and Black), you would hear them say \"this is not about race... this wasn\'t about race... this was about f-d up cops.\" The media is what played it up into a race riot. Having been down there, having known some people who were directly involved, it was clear that race was not the primary purpose of the rebellion. While some pockets are pissed off about racism and took it out on some people, not all were doing that. Some pockets does not a race riot make. I don\'t agree at all with the attacks on individual people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I can support a rebellion that for the most part was fighting against police abuse. (I didn\'t hear about the rape... that is definitely messed up on a number of levels. Again, though, I don\'t think we can discount the legitimate aspects of struggle when people were doing anti-social crimes in the midst of it.) That was what this rebellion was about. No doubts about it... If you went to the city council meeting after the funeral, you would hear all ethnicities attacking the mayor and police for inaction on police brutality.

comment by Chris

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2001 @ 12:36 AM CST

For an amazing example of poor whites organizing themselves for their own needs and demands and against racism, look out for any information you can on the Patriot Party in the very late 60s and early 70s. They worked in appalachian-transplanted/poor white working class communities in the North such as Uptown Chicago, and Eugene, Oregon, organizing free clinics, breakfast programs, while working hand in hand with the local Panthers and Young Lords... Really amazing if you can find anything. I am in the process of researching more about them right now.

comment by John

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2002 @ 11:37 PM CST

i agree with Jon however I aslo think that Nazi\'s are only a small clique. White working class folk exists in vast numbers. You can not call all poor white\'s Nazies because Nazies are a small faction,same with the Klan an even Milita Groups. Everyone is somewhat racist no matter what Race or class they come from whether it is against themselvs, others or both. However raceism manifests itself diffrently in different cultural groups, it is simply a little more obviuos in poor whites then in middle class whites.

comment by Aaron

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2002 @ 04:04 PM CST

What is this a forum?

I would just like to ask the people who are referring to blacks as \"people of color\" to quit doing that. If you people would simply take the time to study a dictionary, then you\'d notice that you are slandering both parties, and are being quiet ignorant, and are bigoted without even thinking.

The dictionary defines the word \"White\" as actually having color. In fact, if I am correct, then White is the highest peak of color on the spectrum scale. Whereas, Black and other dark colors, are actually an ABSCENCE OF COLOR.

Therefore, we are the only \"COLORED\" people on the face of this planet. And yes, we are a minority. If you honestly believe that the White working-class can and will bring a revolution of any flavor to this country, then a good start is to quiet being so PC, and start being honest and observant about a few things.

In fact, if more people recognized their status as \"PEOPLE OF COLOR\" or \"PEOPLE OF NON-COLOR\" this would stirr up a big-enough revolution in my opinion .

comment by Dana

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2002 @ 11:37 PM CST

It is not an insult to call black people \"people of color.\" And if we are talking about race then it\'s shortsighted and inaccurate to *only* talk about black people, since racism affects all races and especially the nonwhite ones.

You are talking about the color spectrum. But when we talk about race, we are talking about skin color and that is an entirely different animal. Dark-skinned people have more pigment (\"color\") in their skins. White people have less pigment. Thus it is biologically correct to call nonwhite people \"colored.\"

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2002 @ 08:03 PM CST

Ok, yes you\'re right that it\'s rather narrowminded to refer only to black people as \"people of color.\" But I didn\'t start this conversation. Most of the stuff I glanced through seemed to be arguments between specifically black and white issues.

While although \"people of color\" may have more pigment than others, that does not imply that they do not have more color than others. In fact, they have less color. Odd isn\'t it. Hard to understand, and one would have to be a bilogist or something to totally understand this, but I don\'t have a whole lot of working knowledge about pigmentation, and what it means for your body, but I think I have a little more understanding than most of my fellow peers and countrymen who are practically illerate, let alone scientifically retarded.

Oh and btw, I didn\'t say it was an insult to call \'em such. I said it was a slander. That\'s a slander whether or not anyone realizes it or not.

comment by chromo

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2002 @ 10:36 AM CST

shawn:
your language betrays you regardless of your trailer-park credentials. the only class of person that cannot \'move into\' a poor white community is a member of it, but it must be nice for you to be able to speak with such security now. if your approach were not already closed and condescending perhaps you wouldn\'t have to mention it so much. the effort you make to relate to me \'as an equal\' is the most succinct argument you make about \'the problem with the working class\'.

\"Maybe you would like to explain to me how it is wrong for a person of any class to move into a poor white community and organize (in an open and non-condescending way) a tennants union and do anti-racism education while organizing that tennants union? As I mentioned in my rant: being missionaries will not work. You have to come into those communities and relate to them as equals. You have to come in there being humble with a desire to learn as well as teach.\"

comment by Dr Klip

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 05 2002 @ 03:35 AM CST

Great article! Coming from self-employed, yet working class parents, who associated mostly with working class whites, I couldn\'t agree more with your observations. Racism (homophobia etc.) among poor whites is a desperate attempt at building common ground and solidarity with *other* poor whites. If everybody can agree \'bout those goddamn [insert_target_group_here]s, that\'s common ground for the culture that poor whites are struggling to rebuild.

Solutions? Here\'s my take:

Primary Goal: Achieving Economic Security

The most important thing is of course economic security. \'Rational\' behavior is impossible if you constantly fear for your livelihood. However, direct calls to class warfare tend to backfire.

For most less-well-off people, the idea of class warfare immediately leads to a zero-sum mentality which scares them shitless. They realize that if there were an all-out \"class war\" of \'middle-class and above\' vs. \'working class and below\' the working class et. al. would get their asses kicked (as they, in fact, are in the dominant class war of today which is primarily organized by an upper-upper class which is richer by far, in absolute terms, than any upper-upper class in history.) They realized (long before anybody on the \'left\' did) that Big Government is a tool weilded by the powerful against the powerless. The same government that gives handouts one day is killing your kids in a retarded war the next. That\'s why they all voted for Reagan -- he was such a schmuck back in his acting days that they could sympathize with him. Ditto for both Bush\'s (and speaking of dittos, well, you get the idea...)

Framework For Economic Security:

Ideally we have some sort of guranteed income for all (as opposed to condescending \'welfare\') so that individuals not need to be wage slaves to meet their most basic needs. Above basic needs a truly free market tends to be most efficient (and in fact is probably necessary, since it produces enough excess that non-productive yet not-very-resource-intensive lifestyes can be subsidized without anybody really noticing.)

The practical problem with such a guanteed income, as usually envisioned, is the need of a large nation-state to do the \'redistributing\' Fortunately this dovetails nicely with much of the activist movement\'s emphasis on local economies. If local economies were healthy enough you probably wouldn\'t need Big Brother to redistribute anything (maybe a \"Little Brother\" to serve in narrowly-defined capacities,
as intermediary between various local interests, and perhaps provide some wealth transfer between regions if one falls behind -- in other words, in the case of America, something closer to Jeffersonian federalism.) But *somehow* the local communities need to mostly run themselves, and \'take care of their own,\' while not devolving into provincialism.

What to Do Right Now:

Encourage trade *within* communities, which creates real wealth as well as trust. Help connect those who want to give with those who directly need help, avoiding intermediaries as much as possible. Teach practical, locally marketable skills to the down-and-out. Get a law degree and do legal assistance. That sort of thing.

Admittedly I have yet to do many of these things. But I\'m working on it...

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 10:45 PM CST

All these labels and classifications seem to be a waste of electricity. Whether it be a ferret, cat, dog or human, when treated by you with dignity (and hear your moral idealogies on human beings being human ranting), they are bound to be influenced (to some degree). As of now, the vast majority of animals are neither treated to, see or hear such acts, hence remain the same.

comment by tnemmoc

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 11:01 PM CST

Unless the situational is dire, the masses (people of all color, class, ethnicty..)will only do that which has an immediate impact on their lives. How much of the U.S. population even thinks of justice and politcs (on a regular basis), maybe 5%? Havn\'t all structures (throughout history) been rammed down the throats of the non-participants be a minute minority? Do you think \'political ideologies\' are gonna sweep through the masses, becoming some long lived commodity? Untill restructuring becomes an immediate need to the masses, left, right and moderate politcal propaganda will remain on the fringes(much like ballroom dancing and model building). So unless you are willing to create the need, aruably, all this \'how do we organize\' will be nothing more then hobbyesque.

comment by blimfitter

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2002 @ 07:36 AM CST

Dr klip makes some pretty sound comments. Having next to fuck all makes you extremely scared of ending up like those poor bastards who have fuck all, especially if you\'ve had to work and fight to get the little you\'ve got. Going on demos, or any other way of getting identified, means becoming much less employable, credit worthy, tenancy worthy, etc- and no-one wants to be the only one who sticks their neck out,(especially if you have kids or other dependants), because other people are also scared shitless of the same thing happening to them if they\'re seen to support you. Which means that you\'ll probably be on your own.
Liberal lefties (and, unfortunately, a lot of \'anarchists\')don\'t have a very good track record of maintaining support once a cause/person becomes last week\'s thing. They also are very selective with their causes, and seem to like supporting people with similar backgrounds, doing sanctioned activities. So there\'s been loads of support for Mumia and Mark Barnsley (and so there should be)- both journalists, for example. But if someone hospitalises a bailiff (or gets wrongly accused of it, cf. above cases)there tends to be a bit of local support, maybe something in counter information or whatever, and then it gets forgotten.
Since I\'ve got into a position of not living hand-to-mouth, I\'ve been more able to think about the unfairness of how things are. Personally, I think some of the most constructive stuff to do is to help set up things like credit unions, if you have the necessary financial skills, and its something people actually want. Once people realise they don\'t have to put up with loan sharks (legal or otherwise), it frees up some of the money that went on interest, which means you live a bit better, and have more time to think, rather than worry.
Other things like food co-ops can work, if they\'re not overstuffed with brown rice and lentils (again, unless thats what people actually want). Cheap fruit and veg make a difference. Skanking the skips(dumpsters) is ok for crusties, but not good if your kids schoolmates see you doing it.
Housing co-ops can also make a difference, if you can handle dealing with all the regulations and wankshaft officials. Again, this is something that people from backgrounds that allowed them to get the necessary skills can help (this can mean having folks of the anti-racist/radical/just sussed kind, like Shawn was describing to PKF last June, and not necessarily having a middle class or otherwise materially priveleged background). Unfortunately, my own experience of working with middle class folk in this context is not good- they tended to take over in negotiations with agencies for funding, for example. We decided to DIY, even if it takes more time. And we decided to go for consensus instead of \'democracy\', like the MC folk thought we should. Which again takes much more time, but the results don\'t even compare.
If these people lived where we do without having the missionary stuff at the front of their heads, they would get more respect. As with everything else, they\'re only interested in us when they want something. I\'m not using \'us\' in a big, inclusive, imply-a-working-class-solidarity-where-there-isn\'t-one sense, but just in the sense that we\'re looked down on either for being poor/stupid to get richer, or being too stupid to rise up and take control, and the people doing the looking down in both cases comes from people having similar backgrounds. Why is it that its the poor folk who have to change, and not the privileged folk who want to make a difference? (Rhetorical question)Why don\'t people think its a worthy thing to do, to find out first hand what being poor actually does to your mind, body, and spirit? Engels was a complete shit, and he tried it.Some of the bullshit rhetoric might change considerably if more \'activists\' had first hand knowledge of just being skint instead of going off on Julia-Butterfly type ego trips.(Buy the fucking tree indeed!)But most folk would just be going round pointing out how many more tins of beans they could get from Netto\'s out of a Giro, and why chip shop chips are nuritionally really bad and a waste of money.(This is missing the point, in case i need to point it out)
So, i think there is stuff that can be done, but the biggest danger from middle class folk outside of their environment, is the middle class tendency (which is hammered into them at home, school, work, and, unfortunately, most types of organising)to impose their will on things, rather than question that right. Where did they get it from, what are the consequences for other people if they get what they want, do they really give a shit?

comment by nunya

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 24 2002 @ 02:54 AM CST

in reading the initial piece i noticed the author mentioned the people he came up with were mostly dead, spent on drugs, or incarcerated...

out of those three categories, who are the most viable revolutionaries?

who better than a convict to represent the very most disenfranchised view?

i have been wracking my brains--and im new on this--to try to envision a pipeline from the prisonindustrialcomplex to the anarchist bookstore, so to speak. it seems that there is a lot of life in there gone bitter and resigned to comply with recidivism statistics for lack of anything better to do, anything more real and lasting and creative. is there any possibility of some sort of \'decompression house\' where once topside people may be invited to try a different mode of function?
im trying to keep this dry and clinical, but the fact is, men and women go in there with heart and come out with none, if they accept their role. is there any way this role could be derailed before it reaches its logical extension?
fact: need houses.
fact: need sympathetic people (pref ex cons)
fact: dicey business, perhaps a pipe dream.
please smack me down if this is nuts...i also think ms dunbar-ortiz was right on by giving a nod to CSU sys--endless resources there--however, no student aid for felons...

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 24 2002 @ 02:48 AM CST

comment by derri

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 22 2002 @ 04:29 AM CST

for what it is worth

in discussing pigment:
white is the absence of hue or \"color\"
black can be created be the addition of all
\"colors\".

it has nothing to do with solving the social problems of racism, and i don\'t understand the significance of the it.

yet, however miserably annoying pc can be,
i don\'t see the reason for any one to say \"people of color\" should not be a category to discuss people afflicted and oppressed by the
system of racism, while the general oppressors is always pointed to that of \"white\" people.

i think a little humilty and common sense could clear up the semantic split hairs so that the rest of can learn more productive ways to combat rascism on every level.

onto other things, i would like to thank Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz who has put in extensive work and obviously has many insights about organization and education of
anti-racist work with working class \"whites\".
i would like to thank everyone else for their personal insights as well (even those i disagree with).

comment by banannarama

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 06 2002 @ 08:43 AM CST

First of all, I think a distinction has to be made between people who are dyed in blue members of the working class, who can give a pedigree of being oppressed, and those who go out and do something positive. If I come from a less than pristine working class background yet still have the general orientation, and use that orientation for positive change, aren\'t I accomplishing more than the true blue worker who does nothing but criticizing the class credentials of people trying to help? Or is \'working class\' like some sort of magic totem that other wise sedentry people can wave around and produce magic results.

About class in the activist scene....I\'ve found that it isn\'t only a question of lack-lacking awareness of the working class, but that that ignorance is supplemented by middle class values which form a world unto themselves. This provides added barriers to understanding because the first thing people come up against is radicals who have assimilated some idea of class struggle into their otherwise middle class lives and assume that what they feel is the same as what working class people feel. It ain\'t so. Yet because of the isolation of working class people from the activist scene these misconceptions are reinforced, so that anyone trying to get through to them has to go beyond saying : \"you never had a working class life\" to saying: \"half of your view of society is really hack work that comes from books and your middle class upbringing, to get to a real understanding of things you\'re gonna half to chuck all of it and be exposed to some reality\".

People are fine with admitting what they lack, the experience of being a minority, women, working class, whatever, but when they\'re challenged with having made an out right error
in how they think of things, and when that challenge is linked to their own class biases it\'s a whole \'nother matter entirely. People don\'t like to be contradicted, and they don\'t want to be told that they\'re wrong. There\'s a natural resistance. Strange, though, that activists are supposed to be so liberal....So the result too often is that middle class activists shut working class people out of their reindeer games rather than take a look at themselves and what they believe.

Case in point: the cultural difference between many radical activists and the white working class. I\'ve noticed that many middle class activists come from the suburban/college hippie scene, as well as from the suburban \'punk\' scene, and as such are a particular kind of counterculturalist, which has it\'s own mores and values. Let me just say that all this is Greek to the white working class. It\'s just another insular bit of layering. But too often the fact that a person has not come from these counter cultural scenes is used as an excuse to exclude them socially.

The options are pretty stark, adopt middle class college counter cultural patterns, or be shut out. I fail to see what being cultural elitists has to do with changing the world.

It\'s pointless and stupid, yet it persists because people would rather stay in their middle class counterculture than look at themselves when challenged by some one from without.

As to how real perceptive the middle class counter culture is-think about this: in my earlier years I knew real working class punks, people who were \'crusty\' and in it for life, and I was somewhat allied to their cause....Yet I\'ve been shut out from associating with latter day middle class \'emo punks\' because I intimidate them in some unknown way. Must be because I\'m not politically correct and don\'t
kiss ass. The point is that the elitist middle class counterculture can\'t even identify some one who was friends with real working class punks. Yet they feel competent to pass judgement on issues like class struggle.

This is why these resistances have to be broken down if the anti-globalization movement is ever going to get a mass audience. A Rainbow Tribe group that thinks it knows class struggle better than the people involved is never going to grow. The first step is to get rid of your goddamned egos!

comment by travis

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 19 2002 @ 02:24 AM CDT

Shawn!
Thanks for an excellent post and initiating discussion on these matters.
I was born, raised and still live in primarily white though \"racially\" mixed poor/working class neighborhoods - primarily in the Southwest US.
By white US standards i have always been poor - usually living on welfare,etc...
You helped me understand more about a basic contradiction i have been thinking about with your comment of the role of the white poor/working class in the US.
I would appreciate hearing from you or anyone else on successful Anarchist organizing/outreach efforts in neighborhoods like mine, esp. ongoing ones here in the SW.
Of curiousity, where do ya live shawn?
Thats all for now.
travis - loveliberate@yahoo.com

comment by Jason

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 02:16 AM CDT

\"If you think there\'s a difference between middle class and working class, you\'ve fallen for the capitalist media\'s attempt at divide and conquer. If you work, you\'re in the working class. If you don\'t work and live off those who do by \'owning\' the company, you\'re in the capitalist class.\"

I definitely agree with you there, Joe Government!

comment by timothy

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:06 AM CST

this all true

comment by shawn

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 21 2004 @ 08:08 AM CDT

Hi I just want to point out that Blacks have it better now than thay ever have. It was not just the whites that inslaved the blacks it was also thare own people more so than whites. Do thay want to hear that no. thay think that every one else owes them everything you know what i am half native american but i dont ask for anything that I dont earn.

The BLACK community needs to eather go back to africa or get back to the plantation if thay want to clame captivity, nobody is keeping them here or saying dont learn in school that is all them, and no one is saying dont work that is them as well. BLACKS ARE NOT SLAVES thay have not been for hundreds of years so move on we the native americans have.

Drop the bs and open your eyes or shut up and get out becouse we dont need you or that lazzy atitude in our country. That is all I have to say

comment by William Ramsdell

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 07 2004 @ 04:05 PM CDT

Hi-I\'ve read many of the comments. I am an artist and Black and White are both the absece of color so we are all colored people. White was created for Supremacy and now Black is used for pride. My question is can we COEXIST? I have always been Green and neutral and it worked, I have traveled across cultures and ethnic groups with no problems for many, many years.Been in 48 states and visited 42 countries. My whole family is integrated with 15 ethnic groups and we never had any problems. As far as the poor working class, you call rednecks, there is a group of black rednecks too. Ignorance will always be. We cannot go all over the world and tell people where to pee until we clean up our own filthy backyard. God and country are just nouns and we are just puppets.

Main Menu

Occupy Sandy

Submit Articles and Events

Follow Infoshop on ...

Newsletter

User Functions

Recent I-News Features

Infoshop Hot Links

Events

Independent Media

Older Stories

Tuesday 04-Jun

Monday 03-Jun

Sunday 02-Jun

Friday 31-May

Tuesday 28-May

Poor White Racism

What's Related

Story Options