Firstly, I am white so I really want to do my best to not be a shithead when discussing this topic. I was in a conversation with a classmate who has Iranian family regarding the question of reform and revolution.
She pointed to general points about harm reduction and improving conditions now, while I attempted to make the case that revolution is the only way to bring true equality and protection and that the push for liberal reforms must be coincided by militant communist action (dual power ect). I was fairly cautious about my handling of my knowledge of race issues I believe, and I mostly reiterated what I understand as written by black and 3rd world communists: the US (and capitalism) is the direct cause of the issues facing the rest of the world and there are no practical circumstances in which one would be safe from the west without the dissolution of capitalism.
Also in discussions regarding white "communists" (mostly in reference to youtubers and people like that, she brought it up) I asserted that putting effort into the education, agitation, and organization of white people is a mostly lost cause in america, and that the majority of effort should go towards the organization of people of color. I cited this with reference to the BPP's work with rural americans and their firm belief that the black minority power structure must be built first and that the support of white people is secondary.
What would be the best way to go about this in the future. How can I make the case for revolution, as a white person, to a poc? How could I communicate the communist message more clearly?
i don't understand the position that whites are a lost cause, and i don't know how you can assert that credibly as a white person. if your workplace is full of white people, you don't really have the option to preach your scripture to POC only.
Respectfully, you're taking broad idea (white folks in the US are generally a lost cause) and trying to boil it down to individual action. Sure, we should all try to influence things in our most immediate circles first. So if you're white and most of your coworkers are white and you feel you can get them to unionize... yeah, go for it. But that doesn't negate the idea that white Americans as a group have been given certain privileges and advantages that make them unreliable at best allies of the oppressed. And as a movement that's not where we should spend our precious resources.
Yeah I second this. I think it's incorrect to write white people off entirely - it's just a matter of priorities and meeting the people where they're at. The people most open to radicalization and revolutionary messaging are those most exploited and beat down by our current system. That clearly applies to many POC, but there's no shortage of white people who have experienced the shitty end of neo-liberalism too. Also, 76% of the US is white, so I don't see how we're going to pull off a revolutionary movement without at least some of them being at worst sympathetic to the cause. PMC and petty bourgeois types might be a lost cause, but that doesn't encompass the entire white population much less even a majority.
I think that when it comes to organizing that we need to be uncompromising when talking about class independent politics. We're not interested in compromising with capital, we're not interested in some greater share of the spoils of exploitation of others, we're here for the working class only. Of course, the working class is disproportionately people of color and women, so their issues ARE working class issues, but that doesn't mean writing off the millions of working class whites who we need solidarity and cooperation with. Organizing them will just look different and might come later, which is fine.
If you're talking about whiteness as an idea or a culture then I misunderstood my bad
my dude, whiteness isn't about skin color. it's a social relation just as much as class is. it's constructed and changes with time and place. if you go back one thousand years and start talking about the common whiteness of all europeans, people are going to look at you like an insane person because you're talking about a diverse group of people who fucking hate each other. it's only their shared economic, cultural, societal relationships over the past thousand years that has constructed any unitary identity that can be called whiteness today. and who is considered white or not white changes over time - ask the italians, the irish, the hispanic, etc.. in the US, various groups are white in some contexts and not in others. whiteness is weird. whiteness is fake. whiteness is no more real than bourgeois identity and it's just as easily cast aside in recognition of shared proletarian struggle. essentialization and self-flagellization over skin color instead of just like not being shit a person, learning how your privilege colors your perspective and correcting for it, and reading and learning from people different from yourself is just another kind of racism wrapped in a woke shell of woe-is-me doomerism. fuck that.
self-flagellization over skin color instead of just like not being shit a person, learning how your privilege colors your perspective and correcting for it, and reading and learning from people different from yourself is just another kind of racism wrapped in a woke shell of woe-is-me doomerism
yeah that's basically what I was trying to say I just don't think I understood or got that across right
ahh got it, thought you were saying whiteness was something real to worry about.
I worded that inappropriately, I more-so meant that white people in the USA are significantly more difficult to radicalize, and shouldn't be the primary focus of leftist movements in the US. Very few movements in the US in the past century haven't been led by nonwhites, and I don't see that any of the underlying causes for that fact have changed in the past 10 years. Unionizing PMC workers is exceedingly difficult and wouldn't, in my calculus, have nearly the revolutionary effect as working to unionize tenants in urban areas.
Yeah, this was a big miss on my part. I conflated a lot of things and wasn't really clear on what I meant. It would be pretty silly to discount a majority of the US just on the account of their skin colour. Thank you for pushing back against me, I definitely needed to do some self-crit and fix a shitty opinion.
You're edging dangerous close to "noble poc need to save the world from my terrible people", like the onus is on ~black and brown bodies~ to lead Yakub's sinful devil's to salvation. It's gross.
The best way to approach this is to "abolish" whiteness like Noel Ignatiev talked about. Reject the concept of "whiteness" and the privilege that it entails.
I understand what you are saying and how it could be viewed that way. I will try to be more careful and clear when asserting that point in the future. My intention was more-so that white leftists that already do exist need to recognize that the majority of white america, in america particularly, have very little reason to support communist movements and that american leftist movements historically are focused around anti-racism and thereby anti-white (in the sense that the default mode of existence for a white person is supporting racism).
In a global scope, it is unrealistic, in my view, to expect a true leftist revolution in the imperial core, therefore as a westerner it is most important to make it easier for militant leftism to come about in other countries in order to work towards a global communism. The west is not going to give up their power without a fight, and the west is not going to be fighting itself, therefore protection needs to be given to those communist projects that can oppose capitalist hegemony.
Could you please link the Igantiev work you referenced? I am not familiar with them.
therefore as a westerner it is most important to make it easier for militant leftism to come about in other countries in order to work towards a global communism
What does this have to do with being "white"? There are non-white people in the Imperial core, many of whom derive many benefits from living here. Many people who would pass for "white" in the US live in ruthlessly exploited countries like Russia.
Links
He had a lot of work! He spent his whole life fighting "whiteness". Probably the most famous is "How the Irish Became White"
https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/noel-ignatievs-long-fight-against-whiteness
Antifada podcast did a cool episode with some of his comrades who did entryism in Chicago-area steel Mills in the 60s/70s that covers some of his work/ideas too.
https://fans.fm/p/ywK0dAG
I made a mistake on this opinion for sure. I needed to clean up my perspective on this, and I appreciate the resources you linked. I think I was confusing a lot of things, and I tried to really think about some of the stuff and I think I understand the situation better. Thanks!
I think it was Freire that said something like, the oppressor even if they're woke shouldn't preach their knowledge to the oppressed, but instead talk with them and lay the groundwork for them to realize their oppression.
Also remember that PoC are normal people. Don't get hung up placing them on a pedestal and focus only them. BRG had a really good point on his RevLeft appearance about white people working to organize other white people in solidarity with PoC because PoC already know their oppression and are already organizing around that.
Could you clarify what you are intending me to take from that quote?
I will take a look at that episode if I can find it. Poc was mostly the subject of our conversation so I think it may have come off that that is my focus. That was just primarily what we were talking about so that's what I reported.
Basically just be mindful you don't whitesplain PoC's oppression to them and expect them to instantly become communist because of their oppression
If you can stand theory maybe give Pedagogy of the Oppressed a read/listen or just listen to the Red Menace episode on it, might be helpful
Okay, I think I can do that, much thanks . I will try and take a look at that book when I get the chance, it looks very interesting. I am much better at theory and writing than at communication.
I would think, coming from a poc perspective, the issue is mostly that it is just theory. if you have proven through scientific analysis that this is correct analysis it shouldn't matter who is reporting it - rejecting correct analysis just cuz its from a "white" person is :LIB:
but without having done the analysis yourself (and myself tbf) I would suggest just supplying the reasons why reform has historically been a failure and how there is no evidence that the material conditions are any different. cuz again it would be great if we could reform ourselves to utopian communism but obviously - despite the immense and best efforts of the reformers before us - we live in hellworld instead.
Could you clarify the first point? I think I understand what you are saying but The first sentence is confusing me.
Theory is really hard and takes a long time to produce, so in cases like this I have been informed that the best route is to reiterate the theory of of those who are more familiar with the subject matter and to platform the already existing theory. Very science like I suppose. I would appreciate if you could relate this to your prior statements.
I appreciate the advice I will try to deploy that in the future.
You and I understand the rigor of theory, but to somebody who is unfamiliar with the framework and works themselves how can they be truly convinced by what is essentially to them just something some old person wrote in a book before. Having the analysis of practice however is irrefutable without an outright refusal of reality. I guess something along the lines of "Oppose Book Worship" but more so closer to the idea that how can you be completely sure of this as fact - as that other user pointed out - and if the facts are insufficient is that a failure of your argument or facts.
Huh, I think that is a good point. I had to think about all this for a bit, and I will try to integrate this in the future. Thanks.
I don’t have anything to contribute to this atm but just wanted to say how well written this was, and bump for any perspective I can absorb on this topic as well. Did the classmate come around to the idea, or stayed firmly in the reform camp?
The classmate did not, but I am also rather terrible at convincing people through discussion. That's why I made this post.
Please don't be afraid to tell me off if I handled this incorrectly.
you are overthinking it and being dogmatic. You are talking to another person and trying to get across your ideas. You dont have to exaggerate the importance of race here. Analysis based on things like race are helpful when you are looking at all of society, less so when you are talking to an individual. It is up to you to decide based on the circumstance, what points you make will resonate with who you are talking to, and which points arent worth bringing up. Dont worry too much about failing in this regard, you will improve as you accumulate more experience, reflect upon your actions, and as you learn more theory.
