Race War Class War

The ongoing debate on social media and in academia about whether race or class is politically more important ignores one important thing about race and class. For most ordinary people, they’re inseparable. Americans talk about class in terms of race, and race in terms of class. In upper-middle-class suburbia it’s done in whispers. When it reaches the public debate it’s carefully hidden in layer after layer of code that everybody understands, but nobody wants to admit they understand. “Good schools” means “mostly white schools.” People in Union County, New Jersey who speak in hushed tones about “over development” aren’t afraid the local real estate industry is going to move a lot of Scots Irish hillbillies from West Virginia into the dreaded “low incoming housing” complexes they’re always trying to keep from getting built, although those Scots Irish hillbillies would probably have even less money than most black people from Newark or Hispanics from Elizabeth. They’re worried that their towns might become less white. In other words, mainstream, Democratic Party liberals are absolutely right when they argue that class and race are “intersectional.” Ethnic and racial oppression, though originally based on economic oppression, take on a life of their own and, in turn, reinforce the same economic oppression that created them.

“Critical race theory,” which maintains that black people can be prejudiced, but not “racist” because “racism” means “prejudice reinforced by power” are also correct. Living with a name like “Rogouski” can be illuminating. I’ve had people, even “woke” liberals, tell Polish jokes to my face, and yet it’s pretty much meaningless. I have as much “white privilege” as a Mayflower descendant. I’m not going to get stopped and frisked by the NYPD or tailed through through Macy’s by the store detective just for browsing. While a Polish joke in the United Kingdom is backed by the power of Brexit, and thus might qualify as “racism,” a Polish joke in the USA is merely bigotry. On the other hand, if a black family moves into the wrong all white suburb in New Jersey, and their neighbors start whispering about “overcrowding in our good schools,” they would do well to give their teenage boys “the talk” about dealing with the local police.

In other words, I largely agree with the argument that black people can be prejudiced but not racist. On the other hand, there’s no real consensus on the American left about whether or not black people can be antisemitic, or even about whether or not Jews, except of course for Bernie Sanders, are really white. Back in the 1980s, when Jesse Jackson, the Bernie Sanders of his generation, tried to keep the Democratic Party from moving in the direction of Clintonite neoliberalism — and our lives would be so much better today if he had succeeded — he was regularly accused of being “antisemitic” by the liberal establishment. He wasn’t, yet regularly associated with extremist black nationalists, like Louis Farrakhan, who very much were. Indeed, I was astounded at how much positive coverage Farrakhan’s Million Man March got in the 1990s. He was the same antisemite he was in 1995 as he was in 1985. But he was no longer any threat to the ruling class. Between 1985 and 1995, the Democratic Party elite swept the problem under the rug, buying off Jesse Jackson and most of the radical, leftist black leadership that came out of the Civil Rights Movements. In 1985, Jesse Jackson just might have dragged the Democratic Party back to its New Deal ideals. By 1995, Clintonite neoliberalism had consolidated itself. Right wing, Wall Street Democrats were firmly in control. They would not see another serious challenge for 20 years. As long as black people voted for the Democrats and supported Israel, rich liberals, and even rich Jewish liberals, were willing to put up with Farrakhan’s antisemitic conspiracy theories, toxic misogyny, and far right-wing, reactionary politics.

On December 10, in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Jersey City, David Nathaniel Anderson and his girlfriend Francine Graham jumped out of a rented van, walked across the street, and opened fire in a local Kosher deli, killing two store employees, one customer, and a Jersey City Police detective. There’s little doubt that it was a targeted, antisemitic mass shooting, and reasonable suspicion that Anderson and Graham, who were members of a black nationalist organization even more extremist than Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, had also planned to target a local Yeshiva, and turn an already bloody day into Sandy Hook Part II. For white conservatives, since it happened in a state with strict gun control laws, it was a confirmation of their worst fears. The “libs” had disarmed the people of Jersey City and left them helpless in the face of black nationalist terror. Rural, West Milford quickly declared itself a “Second Amendment Sanctuary City. Democratic Party liberals, even leftists, on the other hand, finding themselves unable to interpret the story in terms of “intersectional” anti-racism, simply retreated into fantasy land, Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tliab declaring that the shooting proved that “white supremacy kills.”

Rashida Tlaib was engaging in wisfull thinking. I have to admit that during the Bush years and Obama years, I used to breath a sigh of relief whenever I found out that a mass murderer was white. These days I don’t really care. White, black, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, gentile, the only thing mass shooters really have in common is that they tend to be misogynists with a long record of domestic abuse, nihilists poisoned by toxic masculinity. Violence is a failure of the imagination. Guns are the icon of the American right-wing death cult. Yet the Jersey City shootings defy even this interpretation. Both shooters were black. One was a middle-aged woman.

There are times when I believe that Donald Trump became inevitable the day after the Sandy Hook Massacre. The young man who murdered dozens of grade school children wasn’t a right wing extremist or a white supremacist. He was a severely disturbed 21 year old with little or no connection to reality. Yet the NRA and the white supremacist, far-right took up debate on gun control as a call to arms. Whether like Alex Jones they denied the massacre outright, speculating that it might have been a “false flag” operation by Barack Obama to take their guns or they simply went out and bought another AR-15 while they could still get them, conservatives decided that their “liberty” to own guns was more important than dozens of dead children or their grieving families. What’s more, after they realized that Barack Obama had no intention of taking their guns, they decided that the Sandy Hook Massacre was a perfect opportunity to gaslight the “libs.” Indeed, by announcing to the world that they considered the Second Amendment more important than a pile of deal 6 year olds, conservatives were declaring war, making it clear that they were prepared to do anything and everything up to and including gunning down grade school kids to get one of their own in the White House.

Sandy Hook denial was a declaration of war, but not of class war. Conservatives and white supremacists, like Trump, have no intention of challenging the ruling class for economic power. As long as the Starbucks barrista says “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” and as long as they can continue to stockpile military grade weapons, they’re quite content to let the status quo alone. For Joan Terrell-Paige, a member of the Jersey City School Board, on the other hand, the Jersey City massacre was not only a declaration of cultural or race war. It was a declaration of class war.

Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop and New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, both left-leaning Democrats,immediately called for Terrell’s resignation. Shortly thereafter, right-wing, Zionist billionaire Ronald Lauder, declared that he was ready to spend whatever it took to remove Terrell from office. Indeed, it’s hard to disagree with Murphy or Fulop, or even Lauder. Terrell’s long rant in the aftermath of a mass murder was not only viciously antisemitic. It’s guaranteed to pour gasoline on the fire, to make the already bad relations between blacks and Orthodox Jews in Jersey City even worse. But it’s more.

Terrell’s long antisemitic rant is not also not only a warning, a sign that the tensions between Jewish and black Democrats never really went away, but a crude, “intersectional” analysis of class in Jersey City. Liberal and leftist academics need to get out more. Terrell is only an extremist version of the way most real Americans talk about race and class.

No leftist academic sees gentrification in Jersey City through the lens of Jew vs. gentile. But in the real world, people don’t see the larger picture. They see their local oppressor, not the “one percent.” Poor blacks in Jersey City notice that Hasidic Jews have capital and they don’t. Where did they get it? They notice that Hasidic Jews can buy property and they can’t. Why? They notice that the murder of two Hasidic Jews gets the attention of the political and economic elites in a way the murder of dozens of black people doesn’t. Once again, why? Left-wing academics and socialists can’t ignore these questions. In an Ivy League faculty lounge, an “intersectional” class analysis is often spun out into long, highly “rational” debate that some how ends up with the declaration that we have to vote for Kamala Harris over Bernie Sanders. In the real world, mixing class and race can be as dangerous as working with nitroglycerin. One wrong move and boom.

In the United States, the choice between “socialism or barbarism” just might come down to the choice between “class war or race war.”

4 thoughts on “Race War Class War

  1. John Thurloe

    Regimes have ever whipped up hate campaigns against some target minority. In the U.S. it’s been the injuns, niggers, papists, irish, krauts, nips, reds – what have you. But always the goal has been to solidify a putative majority in defense of its rights against a minority that threatens.

    The current anti-semetic hysteria is one where the majority is being bullied in service of a minority. The dynamic is very different. Here, the Regime is unable to whip up hate against some Outsiders. They’ve tried with the A-rabs and the Russkies but haven’t got much traction. The legacy of liberal multiculturalism has blocked off the usual pathways.

    The anti-semite angle is a desperate move. Because no constituency actually ‘likes’ the Jews except those on their payroll. And insofar as Jews, Zionists, Israelis become ever identified as oppressors, agents of the Regime, of the powers that hurt and threaten you and yours – whomever you are – then there builds up a really big bubble of resentment. A thing that unifies otherwise very diverse elements.

    This is a tactic of systemic weakness not strength.

    When events threaten the Regime’s existence – debt finance bubbles, France goes over the top, China deploys some fantastic weapon – then Pandora’s Box will open up and people will demand vengeance. Guess who will be their likely target?

    During the first years of the Confederacy its leaders were categorical that maintenance of slavery was a war aim. But later, as the war turned against them, this same regime split apart with much of it coming to declaim that it was better to free their slaves and arm them rather than lose their claim to state independence and become slaves of the Yankees. Of course, events overtook this unfolding.

    In our current scenario, if the underpinnings of Regime power are seen to crumble, it’s a safe bet that part of it will be quite prepared to pitch everything Jewish overboard in the hopes of sustaining something of power.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. And it’s still Socialism or Barbarism.

    1. srogouski Post author

      The current anti-semetic hysteria is one where the majority is being bullied in service of a minority.

      That’s true in every capitalist country, where the ninety nine percent gets bullied in the service of the one percent. The one percent in the USA is multicultural but can cloak itself in protestations of “antisemitism,” even against a moderate social democrat of Jewish descent. They get to claim the mantle of “anti-fascism” by endlessly rerunning the one more or less “just” war the US fought in the 20th Century. In the English speaking world, Hitler is kind of a secular, ecumenical devil. So wussy cuck boy Jeremy Corbyn becomes both.

      The more I think about it though the more similar JFK and Bernie seem. They’re both secular members of religious or ethnic minorities. Bernie can’t come out and say “I won’t be the Jewish President” the way JFK came out and said “I’m not going to be the Catholic President” because the US ruling class is tied to Israel.

      But in some ways JFK actually did conduct his foreign policy in a pro-Catholic manner. He supported Diem in Vietnam against the Buddhists. He maintained relations with Franco. He supported the Christian Democrats in Germany and various Catholic factions in Poland and Hungary. Being a Catholic no more ran against American foreign policy during the Cold War than being a Jew does in the age of the “War on Terror.”

      So the question remains: If Bernie wins will he conduct an “even handed” policy towards Israel and the Palestinians? And if he does, will he stay out of Dallas?

  2. John Thurloe

    I agree that JFKs foreign policy was broader than the narrow protestant perspective of his predecessors. He was willing to deal with the Catholic mafia too. Plus, he opposed Israel obtaining nuclear weapons. He inherited from both his father and FDR an enduring wariness about the slippery Jewish bankers. Never let them get a hold over you.

    f you are not a direct beneficiary or on payroll of the Regime you’re in proverbial fly-over land. Seething, distrustful, frightened. Agents of the state pushing into your life, demanding, threatening, yanking your chain. And all this while your future, welfare is increasingly in jeopardy. What bears down immediately and most jarringly is the bully campaigns about what you can say. About anything. You can’t say boo about blacks, hispanics, gays, women, young people, old people, the rich, Christians, Islam – anything. Not without risking some liberal shrieking harridans aiming to smear you, get you fired or charged. This is the state if mind that is engendered by current affairs.

    So, people are cowed. They bite their tongues, grind their teeth. But this breeds deep resentment. If the state Regime stumbles, if its power and reach weakens, then history says, I believe, that the stored fury will seek expression. And Jews who have been pounding the anti-semitism brief – will be front line targets. And those who have resisted, who have stood up against the smear campaigns will be – at least for a time – the new Patriots. The worm can turn very fast. And Israel the betrayer, the traitor can fast come into being.

    1. srogouski Post author

      Traditionally I think the US has pursued a rather militantly Anglo Saxon/Protestant agenda in the Western Hemisphere (against Spanish Catholicism) and an opportunistic policy in Europe (destroying Protestant Germany in alliance with France in 1917).

      One thing that seems underdiscussed these days is the rise of Evangelical Protestantism in South and Central America. It’s been going on for awhile (Rios Montt in Guatemala) but it seems to have come to fruition with the Bolsanero and the coup in Bolivia.

      The Catholic Church of 2020 isn’t necessarily the Catholic Church of 1960. It tends to be more socially liberal and in spite of how John Paul II destroyed Liberation Theology, the American ruling class is still reluctant to support a church that produced Pope Francis, who they mistrust (and who Bernie met with).

      But the real conflict in Latin America now seems to be the indigenous vs. evangelicals. I haven’t seen the Vatican condemn Chavez or Morales. Evangelical Protestantism and Christian Zionism seems to have picked up the once Catholic mantle of destroying the indigenous as a class/culture.

      At home the only thing the American ruling class really seems to care about is breaking up class solidarity by an appeal to a narrow ethnic identity. Or to be more specific, they insist that we all see ourselves according to a narrow ethnic and not a class identity. Thus they can simultaneously publish militant Zionists like Brett Stevens (who’s now citing antisemitic white nationalists to prove that Jews are the master race) and the 1619 Project (which argues that all of American history is about racism).

      I think the Trotskyists at the World Socialist Website pretty much get this one right.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s