Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
Sat Nov 11, 2017, 05:07 AM Nov 2017

A fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between economic and social justice. [View all]

Last edited Sun Nov 12, 2017, 01:15 PM - Edit history (2)

Edited for clarification:

I’ve seen it postulated that social injustices are caused by wealth or income disparities. So, if we address the latter, we'll address the former. That reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between social and economic justice.

I'm sympathetic to what many dismiss as "far left" points of view, but this is one major issue that many leftists get wrong. In fact, you might even say people who make the above claim have it completely backwards. The fostering and exploitation of bigotry (along with race-based voter suppression and gerrymandering) is what enables Republicans to win political victories, which leads to right wing economic policies being enacted. Those policies hurt more than anyone those who are already most oppressed. Then, the wealth gap between white individuals and persons of color is justified using various stereotypes.

This has been the case since the founding of the US on the genocide of one people and the enslavement of another. Remember, race is a social construct. And "whiteness" (along with its supposed superiority) was an invention borne out of the desire to prevent a united front by all poor, oppressed people. Whites would be indentured servants with light at the end of the tunnel, while Negroes would be kept in bondage. Poor whites would be thrown a bone (and a whole lot of propaganda), enough to make them feel superior, enough to make them feel like they had more in common with their oppressors than their fellow oppressed.

Social Security (initially), the GI Bill, access to housing and other investment opportunities, the right to vote, access to higher education, access to employment with a decent wage, access to a fair trial and so much more was essentially denied to persons of color and women. Those injustices (even those that were seemingly resolved) continue to impact the present, including the wealth gap between white households and black and brown households, between men and women. Therefore, a rising tide has not historically lifted all boats. Ta-Nehisi Coates makes "The Case for Reparations."

This is why social justice victories (legalizing gay marriage) and breaking barriers (first Black POTUS, first woman POTUS, first transgender state legislator, etc.) constitute more than mere symbolism. They are cracks in the facade, and crucial steps toward addressing economic injustice.

Much has been made of the *white* working class, or even white working class men. Democrats already do better than Republicans among the working class. In saying Democrats shouldn't go out of their way to appeal to *white* working class men, the point isn't to denigrate that subset of the population. The point is that the Democratic Party platform should already appeal to the working class. And, for the most part, it does, based on exit polls following every election.

Why speak specifically of *white* working class folks? We all know why. Either it's because there's this assumption that only white people work (horribly racist and obviously false), or it's because a certain portion of *white* working class folks are voting based on factors that have nothing to do with candidate positions on wage stagnation, workplace safety, health care, equal pay, paid family leave and all of the other issues that should matter to the working class. If that's the case, and I think we all know that it is, what does one suggest Democratic candidates do?

Should Democratic candidates not talk about criminal injustice, the race-based "War on Drugs," race-based voter suppression, a path to citizenship and the fact that US policy has been a driver of immigration all around the world, reproductive rights, equal pay, a culture that suggests sexual assault is tolerable, and so on? If not talking about those things, or - worse - taking the opposite position is what it will take to win over a certain subset of the population, then that's just too bad. As Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Just as some rich folks recognize the danger of extreme economic disparity, we should all want less disparity (in terms of wealth, criminal justice, medical care, housing, etc.) between white folks and persons of color, between men and women, between gay and straight. Get on board with Democrats or lose, because ultimately "the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice."

So, in summary, going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural wealth disparities (again, stereotypes are used to justify the wealth gap between black and white households, for instance). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.

We must address racism (including xenophobia) and sexism head-on. If we don't, there's no hope of substantially redistributing wealth or opportunity. A common response to what I’ve written is that “we must fight for both economic and social justice” or that “it’s not an either-or situation.” Of course it isn’t. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, ending imperialism, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone (to say nothing of other forms of bigotry), the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." Lament no more, as the reason has always been quite clear. The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.

And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.

Lastly, a message for the young folks and others who are hoping for a viable left wing alternative to the Democratic Party in this 2-party system of ours. The first step is ending the viability of the Republican Party. And we do that by significantly diminishing racism, sexism, heterosexism and xenophobia (because that, and not right wing economic policy, is what's keeping the GOP alive). In the meantime, you need to support the only viable party that stands in the way of fascism. And you need to recognize that addressing social injustice is key to addressing economic injustice.

64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
when politician do talk KT2000 Nov 2017 #1
Strange Things Are Taking Place True Blue American Nov 2017 #2
(self-delete) Ken Burch Nov 2017 #3
No, we are not "all united on social justice," ehrnst Nov 2017 #39
I actually self-deleted that when I saw the piece the OP was responding to. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #41
Good observation. ananda Nov 2017 #10
The term "white working class" is over-used by voting surveys. mdbl Nov 2017 #4
+1 for the op and this comment. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #6
Not backwards. BOTH effects are synergistic in a vicious circle. Avoid "chicken or egg" trap. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #5
Why pick one? If you do that, you tell part of your base to wait for their dire needs to be met. Squinch Nov 2017 #8
Woosh. "Pick one" as a STARTING point for ANALYSIS. Then pick the OTHER and see how it is a CIRCLE. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #13
Sigh. Not "woosh." No one is missing your point. It's not that deep. Squinch Nov 2017 #17
Yes, not deep, it's OBVIOUS. But you can't find anything I've written in thread that says "wait" Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #19
Here's where you talk about "doing one first": "if you start with ... bettyellen Nov 2017 #26
Clearly my post is entirely analysis, not prescription. I did not write your false quote. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #29
Bzzzt. That was rude. I read your post the same way Squinch did. kcr Nov 2017 #34
Bzzzt. They & you complain about prescriptions when the post has no prescriptions. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #35
Naaah, it's about the priortization of issues/ which is a legit topic... bettyellen Nov 2017 #59
Read my post #5. It is nothing about prescribing remedies, hence NO PRIORITIZATION therein possible Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #60
+1000 smirkymonkey Nov 2017 #14
Woosh. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #15
Woosh. The wording makes clear it is ANALYSIS, not prescription. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #20
I got it. CrispyQ Nov 2017 #31
And that's the argument I've been making the whole time...that we don't have to choose Ken Burch Nov 2017 #42
It isn't about choosing so much as recognizing the relationship. Garrett78 Nov 2017 #55
I recognize the relationship. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #58
A FB "friend", who happens to be black and somewhat well-known........ socialist_n_TN Nov 2017 #24
+1 Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #25
Excellent! CrispyQ Nov 2017 #32
Exactly -- chicken or egg. +11111! KPN Nov 2017 #30
As I wrote in response to someone else: Garrett78 Nov 2017 #53
In practice, it is usually difficult to separate economic power from political power: struggle4progress Nov 2017 #7
We have not yet "ultimately won" the fights against racism, sexism and xenophobia. Squinch Nov 2017 #9
That is quite clear, isn't it? struggle4progress Nov 2017 #12
Agreed. And we don't have to put aside the economic struggle to win those fights Ken Burch Nov 2017 #43
Exactly. Work on both simultaneously. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #16
Reparations not a solution. 1) Reconciliation, 2) Truly equal justice, 3) Economic support Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #11
Reconciliation rests on recognition of the wrongs and admission that they WERE wrongs. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #44
Those things you listed are but forms of reparations. Garrett78 Nov 2017 #54
The idea to prioritize the fight for economic injustice seems 2b another trickle down theory. Madam45for2923 Nov 2017 #18
With all due respect, KPN Nov 2017 #28
So perhaps the GOP party will cease to exist and the Dem party will break into two parties? Irish_Dem Nov 2017 #21
It has been postulated ... ? KPN Nov 2017 #22
That's hardly a broad sweeping statement. Garrett78 Nov 2017 #52
Yeah, I misread or should say read more into your "postulated" statement than you intended KPN Nov 2017 #62
May I pose a question? GaryCnf Nov 2017 #23
First, I wish I had written "desire" instead of "need." Garrett78 Nov 2017 #56
I cannot agree more with the positions set out at the link GaryCnf Nov 2017 #57
Excellent, thoughtful post. yardwork Nov 2017 #27
As I mentioned GaryCnf Nov 2017 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst Nov 2017 #38
The 1% who control 38% of the wealth in this country would love to make this about race I am sure. jalan48 Nov 2017 #36
Doesn't mean that things aren't about race. Wealthy black men still get stopped for ehrnst Nov 2017 #37
I agree and as a society we need to work to stop racial discrimination and injustice. jalan48 Nov 2017 #40
Europe does not bear that out. ehrnst Nov 2017 #46
Good luck with that approach. I'm sure you'll find people who like to be told what to do. jalan48 Nov 2017 #47
I see plenty of that among many who consider themselves to be the purest ehrnst Nov 2017 #48
Absolutely, keep listening. I'm sure good things will happen. jalan48 Nov 2017 #49
I don't listen to the trope that economic equality and national health mean that sexism and racism ehrnst Nov 2017 #50
Good for you. jalan48 Nov 2017 #51
Agreed. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #45
Wow. ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #61
Thanks for making me aware of this post Garrett78, eloquently stated :) JHan Dec 2017 #63
Sure thing. And thanks. Garrett78 Dec 2017 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A fundamental misundersta...