Identity politics

[Andrew Kliman]

I agree with Michael Eisenscher that the issue under discussion is that of
Lenin's category of "aristocracy of labor" under a different name.  Lenin
was referring to a section of the working class in the imperialist countries
benefiting absolutely from the oppression of working people in the
periphery, but the logic of the argument can certainly apply within a single
country.

Michael and Jim Heartfield note rightly that Lenin used "aristocracy of
labor" to refer only to a *section* of the working class in the imperialist
countries.  Some later writers, conversely, have argued that the whole of
the working class in these countries constitutes an aristocracy of labor.

I think the present discussion is replicating this distinction.  Mat
Forstater writes "Where you say some white workers benefit from
discrimination absolutely in US, but they don't 'as a whole,' I say they do,
generally, on average, benefit as a group, but that doesn't mean every
individual white worker does."

He continues:  "You say that white workers in the external labor market are
hurt by discrimination, but what I understand you to be saying is that some
white workers end up in a secondary sector?"

No, not really.  I interpreted your earlier point about "white workers
organizing on the basis of ethnic solidarity [, which] increases their
bargaining power" to be a reference to racially exclusive craft unions in
hiring hall situations.  (Again, I was guessing.)  In that case, it is clear
to me *how* the white workers can benefit absolutely from discrimination --
they shield themselves off from competition.  As Jim put it, "The labour
aristocrats derived their special privileges from the control over access to
their trade, and so could command a price for their skills way above
ordinary wages.  Often they hired workers to do menial parts of the job."
(The same thing is true in the building trades in the U.S.)

But the vast majority of jobs, even those in the so-called primary sector,
are not like that.  For instance, workers in unionized auto used to have the
classic "lower-tier primary" jobs.  They didn't generally have special
skills, they didn't bring the skills to the job, they didn't control the
technology, and they didn't control hiring (especially in the sense of being
able to restrict labor supply).  So it is unclear to me *how* white workers
in the more general cases are supposed to benefit absolutely from
discrimination.

I'm also still wondering about evidence, which is really two issues.  First,
what kind of evidence is relevant?  You seemed to suggest that macro-level
evidence wasn't relevant, but micro-level evidence is.  But if it is true
that "white workers benefit from discrimination absolutely in US ...
generally, on average, ... as a group," then don't we need to consider
macro-level evidence?   Moreover, it isn't clear to me how micro-level
evidence can distinguish between relative and absolute benefits from
discrimination, e.g., when Blacks are last hired and first fired.

Second, if macro-level evidence *is* relevant, it would seem to me that the
thesis that white workers benefit absolutely at the expense of Blacks would
imply that movements in their wages, incomes, employment rates, etc. would
be negatively correlated.  Instead, as I noted, the correlations are
positive, and very strong.  Of course, correlations do not leave "other
variables" constant, but it isn't clear to me what the other variables would
be.


Mat also writes:  "Your conclusion I didn't think followed from the
absolute/relative point so much as from a combination of the A-B-C argument
you made, and the one about the pie not being fixed in size, and the
perceived vs. actual interests distinction (each argument which really
deserves more discussion).  So I thought I could disagree on the
absolute/relative and agree with the conclusion."

Right, but the "variable pie" argument is a crucial link, and I think that
the distinction between absolute and relative gains is dependent upon it.
Take employment.  If there are a fixed number of jobs to go around, then any
time a white worker gets a job instead of a Black, that's an absolute gain
for whites.  But if the number of jobs is variable, then a "divide and
conquer" case can be made here.  I.e., it could actually be more beneficial
for white and Black workers to fight together to end discrimination AND for
more jobs, a shorter week, etc.  The same is true for wages, and so forth.


Mat:  I'll sum up and shut up.

Please don't.  We may be getting somewhere.


Mat:  "these modes of oppression and domination [racism, patriarchy] should
not be expected to simply disappear on their own. ... we have
to study, e.g., racism and sexism in the labor movement, racism, classism,
and eurocentrism in the Women's movement, sexism in Nationalist movements,
etc.  Racism and patriarchy are not reducible to class, ... So when you
promote the AFL-CIO as the vehicle for their liberation be prepared to
answer a few questions. ...  And are we going to dismiss as "divisive" Black
female student activists ... when they raise issues of race privilege and
racism in a discussion of the gender studies curriculum on campus?  There's
a problem with insisting on one kind of oppression being the most
fundamental or the most important.  People who are victims of one type of
exploitation or oppression may benefit from another kind.  We have to be
against all kinds."

I realize this wasn't directed at me personally but, due to the crucial
nature of the issues, I want to make clear that I agree 100% with what Mat
writes here.  I have ZERO tolerance for subordinating Black liberation,
women's liberation, or anything else to some abstract "class" struggle.  I
have ZERO tolerance for attempts to negate their specificity by reducing
them to -- even by "making then part of" -- "the" class struggle.  And the
labor bureaucracy is certainly no vehicle for anyone's liberation.


Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman               Home:
Dept. of Social Sciences              60 W. 76th St., #4E
Pace University                       New York, NY 10023
Pleasantville, NY 10570
(914) 773-3951                        Andrew_Kliman at msn.com

"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.*  It is the
*critique* that measures the individual existence by the essence, the
particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.