poor leftists talk about poverty, labor aristocrats get uncomfortable and insist that sociological classes aren't materialist. "all that matters is that we're working class - we're all in this together"
black leftists talk about racism, whites get uncomfortable and insist that they're not personally part of the problem. "we mustn't allow the bourgeois to divide the proletariat along racial lines - we're all in this together"
female leftists talk about patriarchy, men get uncomfortable and insist that it hurts them too. "this men vs women stuff is reductive anyway - we're all in this together"
third world leftists talk about imperialism, americoids get uncomfortable and insist that red white and blue lives matter too. "what happened to the international working class - we're all in this together"

you don't have to invite yourself to every form and experience of oppression. anyone with a baby's consciousness of intersectionality ought to be capable of admitting when they have privilege

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

i'm not disputing that it does but i'm less clear on how white supremacy harms crackers other than the line about racism being a wedge to control poor whites.

That's the issue. All of sociology must be rooted in historical materialism. Doing that here, we can see the issue is to split the working class so that working whites do the job of the bourgeoisie for them-- they do not grasp class consciousness, opting instead to self-identify as an invented social concept ("white") -- a concept that is always defined as acceptable and aligned with the ruling class' material goals -- in order to split the working class and oppress other races, sexes, genders, etc avoiding revolution.

I found this write up in People's World helpful here