The property that keeps you poor

When whiteness was "elevated from a passive attribute to an object of law and a resource deployable at the social, political, and institutional level to maintain control" (1734), white workers gained an asset that substituted for class solidarity. If whiteness is legally protected property with "real" value, white workers are not simply deceived but are responding "rationally" to a structure that rewards racial identification—and in doing so, commit themselves to the ideology of racism. As such, the system has structured white workers' interests in a way that prevent policies that could actually improve their material conditions.

Whiteness gave white workers just enough to stop them from demanding more. By replacing class solidarity with racial identification, it ensured the coalition that could have challenged exploitation never formed. Whiteness was designed to keep you in your place while convincing you it was worth defending. It only works on those who never had real power to begin with. Whiteness is the property that keeps you poor precisely because it is a substitute for the kind of ownership that would actually change your position.

This becomes self-enforcing as material conditions worsen. The less a white worker holds in wages, housing, and security, the more crucial whiteness becomes as the one remaining differentiating asset. As such, poor whites protects the racial order as it protects the only property they have left. The value of whiteness was always constituted by exclusion—it is worth something precisely because others are kept from having it. Black advancement and redistributive policy therefore, within this logic, is a direct dilution of the asset. As whiteness delivers less materially, the intensity of identification increases rather than decreases, because the perceived threat to it grows. Grievance gets expressed in racial terms because race is the ideology the system has trained them to think through, and the politics gets more extreme as conditions worsen, not less.

The white workers who would benefit most from redistributive politics are the same people the property system has given the strongest reason to oppose it. The asset may be depreciating, but the structure that made it valuable remains — and until that structure is addressed, the politics will keep running in the wrong direction.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We're all separate but equal

During my tutorial with Dylan yesterday, he brought up the SCOTUS case Brown vs. Board of Education in our discussion of a minimal state. Whilst reading Marx, I realized that both the legal implication (state according rights to individuals) and the societal implication (abolishment of the 'separate but equal' doctrine) of the case are relevant to the claims Marx is making.  Marx delineates between two societies -- political and civil -- and further between the two lives one leads in each -- public and private. In a political society, man is entitled to the liberties given to him by the state, and considers himself a member of a functional community. Marx hints at the mirage of political society, writing that man is “the imaginary member of an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality” (34). In such a society, he leads a public life, one in which the state can establish political equality by abolishing “the distinctio...
Read more

What Brettschneider Ought to Admit: Democracy Is Substantive

Although Corey Brettschneider presents his value theory of democracy as a third way between pure proceduralism and outcome-based accounts, his framework collapses into substantivism. Despite insisting that democracy cannot be reduced to “procedure-independent evaluations of outcomes,”(2) he explicitly grounds democratic legitimacy in substantive rights that “limit those policy outcomes that would fail to respect citizens as rulers.” (20). Legitimacy therefore hinges not merely on fair participation but on conformity to three independently specified values—equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. These values operate as external normative standards against which democratic decisions are judged. Brettschneider treats policies such as ex post facto laws or vote buying as democratically illegitimate regardless of procedural authorization, making clear that outcomes remain subject to direct moral assessment. This is not procedural democracy supplemented by rights; it is ...
Read more

'Enough and as Good' for Whom?

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...
Read more