Gar W. Lipow wrote:
> I do think something is getting lost on this thread. I know there is
> no such thing as a "pure" ideological argument or a pure "empirical"
> argument -- but in this case I think the ideology is being made more
> complex than it really is and the empirical question simpler.
>
> The question is not whether the working class would gain if they could
> unite and overthrow capitalism? I hope that is not in serious dispute
> on this list (with a few quite interesting exceptions).
>
> The question is whether the skin privileged really come out ahead in
> immediate self-interest by maintaining their skin privilege under
> capitalism, vs having less skin privilege under capitalism. The answer
> is not obvious either way, because there are two factors. Lessening of
> skin privilege under capitalism does mean that (for example) a white
> male seeking one of the paying jobs usually denied to the non-skin
> privileged now has more competition. But it also means that he no
> longer has to worry about a non-skin privileged person's competition
> lowering his wages. Generalizing, lessening racism divides the pie
> more evenly, but by increasing the bargaining power of the workers
> also gives them a bigger pie to divide (at the expense of capital).
>
> It is quite true that the amount of wage flexibility under capitalism
> is not infinite. But it is not zero either. That is why the empirical
> question is important. Does lessening of racism under capitalism
> increase workers bargaining power *enough* so that even those with
> skin privilege come out ahead.
>
> Note that when true I will never make this my sole argument. To do so
> would be to endorse white racism when whites do gain from it. But if
> the weight of the evidence shows that it is true -- it is well worth
> pointing out. To generalize again: to never show where immediate
> narrow self-interest and moral outrage or class interests coincide is
> to reduce yourself to a mere public scold. To focus solely on
> immediate self-interest and ignore moral or class arguments is to
> reduce yourself to a mere pork-chopper. (There is an old-time term I
> came across the other day which deserves revival. I wonder if it was
> used the way I am using it, though.)
>
> Note also that I do not ask the same question about gender. That is
> because, most men live in household which include working women, it is
> almost impossible for men not to benefit personally when economic
> discrimination against women is reduced. ( I am of course assuming
> that reducing either racism or sexism increases workers immediate
> bargaining power to some extent and thus increases the share of labor
> vs. capital -- even in the absence of an immediate revolution or of
> infinite wage flexibility. I think this is a reasonable assumption.)
>
> None of this assumes that racism or sexism are solely capitalist plots
> -- merely shows why workers privileged by either oppression might
> have an immediate material self-interest in giving up that privilege
> (and why they might not) and asks empirically which way the best
> evidence points.
> The facts given so far are that everyone's wages go up when
> unemployment among minorities goes down but not as much as when white
> unemployment goes down. The question is: how much?