I entirely agree with that. One of the interesting things about Kofi Buenor Hadjor's book is that he takes the opposite conclusion from Theodore Allen (Wages of Whiteness) and Hacker (Two Nations). They see racism in terms of a 'white skin privilege', which is of course readily demonstrable, in terms of distribution of resources between the races. However, Hadjor says that racism has been a disaster for the white working class. Even though their wages have been high relative to blacks, their ideological subordination to the ruling order means that they are incapable of defending their own living standards.
> All individual personal prejudice is an important
>problem, the main political aspect of the racism
>of white masses or workers is it critically divides
>the working class. Divide and rule, divide and
>rule. The white workers don't get it. So of course
>it is the policy. It is the number one policy of
>the American bourgeoisie since they came into
>existence.
I agree. 100 per cent.
In message <2.2.16.19980507083819.10ef0018 at pop.igc.org>, Michael
Eisenscher <meisenscher at igc.apc.org> writes
>Pardon me, but this sounds too much like "blame the victim." A significant
>factor in the dockers' ultimate defeat was the unwillingness of their
>national union's leadership to back them up.
On that score I agree. The TGWU leadership left them high and dry. But
you have to understand that even if they had supported them, the T&G has
not been able to organise any significant secondary action for years.
Unions in Britain are an empty shell of their former selves. Their
principle activities are individual representation, selling cheap
insurance and so on. The level of grassroots union organisation is much
lower than it has been since before the war.
> Despite that fact from the
>reports I have seen, they garnered considerable sympathy and support among
>rank and file union members.
Some sympathy, yes. In much the same way anyone who puts on a sad face
gets sympathy. They got a big cheer at Anfield, and an evening of
alternative comedy on Channel 4. Solidarity, no. That was pointedly
lacking. No disrespect to the anarchists, but when they are the only
ones on the Support the Dockers march, you know that this is a cause
that has been relegated to the sidelines. (One of the more gruesome
sights on the march was the Dockers dressed in 'traditional' 19C. dress,
adding to the carnival atmosphere) It is pointed that you hear more
about the Dockers strike on the internet than you ever did in Britain:
that's because the dockers' strategy was to seek support further and
further afield, as solidarity in Britain was so lacking.
> The issue is not whether British workers'
>class consciousness is not up to some level of revolutionary fervor or
>whatever standard you are using, but whether when confronted with immediate
>threats to their interests, they will fight back.
Oh yes, indeed, that is the question. And the answer is that the dockers
were isolated while substantial numbers of their former comrades scabbed
on them. Other docks carried on working. And, beaten, the dockers voted
after two years to accept the deal that had been offered them in the
first few months of the strike. No disrespect to those dockers who
struck. Nobody here is gainsaying there tenacity and struggle. But union
organisation in this country is at a very low ebb: it really has not
recovered after the defeat of the miners' strike.
> Can it be that an entire
>nation's working class is mesmerized by the spirit of a dead princess? I'm
>headed right out to the video rental store to get a copy of Camelot.
On the Saturday of her funeral, I went out to avoid the TV coverage and
sat in Whittington Park, on a sunny day on my own. The streets were
empty. Archway was deserted. You're lucky if you only see it on a video.
In real life it is much more hideous.
--
Jim heartfield