Labour and aristocrats

bon moun sherrynstan at
Wed Feb 12 19:35:08 MST 2003

There most certainly IS a white wage, whether it fits a pat formula or not.
Claiming there is not flies in the face not only of economic reality, but
political reality.  It cannot be understood however through the lens of
black and white, but as a national question.  The bible-thumpers can have
at me for this.  The metropoles, when in the larger scheme of things it
pays off economically and politically, will reduce the level of
exploitation of "their own" workers in order to gain the stability and
political support necessary to continue to squeeze the periphery.  Once we
understand that African Americans, and in the Southwest Chicanos, are an
internal periphery (including oppressed "peoples" whose history has not
forged them into a "nation"), we can begin to understand why at every
historical juncture in the US, when the white working class was presented
with a choice between Black fellow workers and their white bosses, at the
end of the day, they have chosen the white bosses.  Generalizing about
labor aristocracies in "imperialist" countries - generic - is abstraction.
US imperialism is historically specific, and its development includes the
national oppression of Black people - forged out of its collective
experience through slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and on.  This is not
simply a matter of super-exploitation or racism (an ideology linked to but
not synonymous with national oppression).  This is precisely the reason
there will never be a US working class revolutionary movement that takes
political power that bypasses (black & white unite, et al) the imperative
of building Black (speaking as a Southerner) political power and

Fire away.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list