I think, for what its worth, that its a tad unfair, or premature at the very least, to characterize the position that racism may well generate selective and relative advantages for the dominant group in such a way. So tweaked I felt. Then again, I am also mindful of the frustrations that I, like a lot folks, feel about the shit that is happening and so I bear in mind that empathy by far the better path. And I also very much agree with Yoshie it is hardly in people's long-term interest to pursue a course whereby their advantages are obtain largely through their overt or tacit oppression of others. By putting the point as starkly as she does makes her argument compelling.
> "sharing" is utterly alien to capitalist
> values. Moreover, working class "society" under capitalism is subject to
> the same compulsion to compete as is every other sector of capitalist
> society. The working class is not inherently "sharing" in its "internal"
> relations. The working class under capitalism is not the seed, embryo or
> model of the future post-capitalist society. It is not incipiently
> "socialist" - its socialization under capitalism is only necessarily objective.
Perhaps sharing wasn't the best choice. How 'bout refusing to relinquish power and advantage? Though I'm not sure that would substantially affect your last couple of sentences. Bear in mind, however, you initially framed the copperhead riots as coming from immigrant and white fears. Looked from another vantage point one might wish they were only fears. But a struggle is a lot harder when particular groups can and did gain from the status quo. I almost typed "vested interest" but that seems a backassward way of saying it was in the whites' interest. And yet it was in a way
_as they define_ their relative control or access to jobs, wages, etc.
> It is precisely because relations between workers have the same egoistic,
> competitive character as the rest of capitalist society, that the
> devaluation of one part along racial lines drags down the whole class by
> intensifying competition. An injury to one really is an injury to all, as
> the saying goes.
This is nicely phrased and certainly locates one of the engines driving the various expressions of racism and sexism, as Yoshie and the whole race/gender and capitalism lit has pointed out. But I keep getting tripped up on the relative nature of the injuries. As Richard Ratcliff once remarked, the rich die in better health. And as I think about the dynamics of racism and sexism, I'm continually drawn to the advantages accorded to some and the role that might play in its persistence.
Dennis Breslin