Read on Twitter
The 99% vs the 1% was a nice phrase but at some point you've gotta ask where the hell that 99% is. And when you do that, what becomes clear is those numbers are nowhere close to right for the US. It's probably closer to 60% vs 40%, and why helps us understand class more fully.
Class is a relationship to production not income, that still needs to be clear. A landlord making 30k a year is not more proletarian than a plumber making 50k. But, capitalism in the US operates by getting a lot of buy in from folks who are not pure capitalists.
Now one could note the vast systems of propaganda and miseducation the US uses which is true, but insufficient. Serfs were trained their entire lives to view themselves as subservient to lords and still revolted way more than your typical white worker. A material basis is needed.
And I mention white specifically because those revolts the US does have (such as most recently Minneapolis) are pretty much always done by black, native, and brown folks. And that's because these groups have a different relationship to production from white workers as we'll see.
Let's talk wealth. In a capitalist system, wealth is made up either of commodities, ownership in the means of producing commodities, or cash. And a quick reminder, commodities are things which have both a use value (aka a direct benefit from consumption) and an exchange value.
The wealth of whites is WAY fucking higher than everyone else but especially compared to blacks, hispanics, and indigeneous folks https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/
But most of those whites are workers so their relationship to production is the same right? Not quite.
But most of those whites are workers so their relationship to production is the same right? Not quite.
Where is white wealth concentrated? In homes and in stocks aka commodities and ownership of the means of production. Generally speaking a house stereotypically in the suburbs and in retirement vehicles like 401ks or IRAs. How does this impact one's relationship to production?
Well, on a level of paying the day to day bills for most the answer is "not much." The majority of white workers pay these things from their wages which (unless they happen to be a failson getting a cushy job from dad) are subject to exploitation. So why aren't they socialist?
Because while are a day-to-day basis these alternative avenues of wealth aren't useful right NOW (in finance terms they aren't "liquid"), these forms of wealth ensure that whites will eventually have a personal escape from the alienation and exploitation of wage work.
That's why a lot of white workers care a LOT about where the stock market goes, because that will impact their retirement and how early they can do it. That's why nextdoor is full of people fretting about property values, because one day you can cash out or rent out.
So white workers get to eventually check out of being workers. And in a way that aligns their interests with capitalists. Pensions don't get bigger with bigger profits, 401ks do. Free housing doesn't give options for rent or cash, owning a house in a housing market does.
And frankly, this is a lot easier for most whites than actually changing capitalism. So they mostly just want tweeks on the edges that split the spoils a bit more evenly, as long as you're not asking too much of them anyways.
And this of course also contributes to greater conservativism as they age, the older they get, the more they'll be dependent on what they own rather than the wages they get.
All of this aligns large portions of the white working class with the many of the interests of capital, both in exploiting internal colonies/land theft at home and in imperialist exploitation abroad. This is a material reason why even white leftists are often crap on these issues
"But Surplus" you say, "you said 60% vs 40%, how is the majority still on the worker's side if whites are a majority of the country?"
Because my observant friend, whites are the primary beneficiaries of this system but that doesn't mean some don't fall through the cracks.
Because my observant friend, whites are the primary beneficiaries of this system but that doesn't mean some don't fall through the cracks.
Whether from living in an area capital has abandoned, having a different oppression that disqualifies them from being part of the richer parts of society (like being trans or getting addicted to drugs while poor), or just bad luck, some whites never accumulate wealth.
And of course, class traitors are a real, though of course rare, phenomenon.
But we need to not delude ourselves into thinking we've really got that 99 to 1 numbers that are materially in favor of change and we need to be a lot more suspicious of what side folks who still argue that are really going to be on.
And in case the preceding thread wasn't clear, there's a material reason why most whites don't get on board with socialism. Anyone telling you it's because too many "wokescolds" yell at "workers" for saying slurs, they're an idiot, a grifter, or both.
