By Pinellas DSA Member Bruce Nissen

Progressive and leftist discussions and memes these days commonly employ the word “privilege.” In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of another word more frequently used. The term is intended to educate those of us who do not face the types of discrimination or unfair treatment against certain groups that is regrettably so prevalent in the U.S. today.

The most common usage of the term is “white privilege” or “white skin privilege,” referring to the long and deeply institutionalized racial discrimination against African Americans and other people of color compared to lighter-skinned European Americans. But the term can also be used to point out the superior position society places some groups compared the less-favored categories: “male privilege” over females; “ableist privilege” over those with a handicap; “heterosexual privilege” over LGBTQ populations; and the like. In this essay I will only be discussing white privilege, although the arguments I develop can be equally applied to other types of labelling people as privileged.

Before directly addressing examples of the usage of “white privilege” rhetoric, I want to cover a few basic principles we need to adhere to if we wish to be persuasive in getting people with backward or socially harmful attitudes to change their perspective. First, our goal as Democratic Socialists must be to build a powerful working-class movement composed of all races, genders, sexes, sexual orientations, etc. to confront and defeat what are commonly referred to as the one percent, the capitalists, or the corporate elite. This movement must oppose all the discriminatory “isms” both because we are fighting for a society where they no longer exist and because movements divided along racial, or sexual or other lines historically fail.

Second, we want to choose the rhetoric that is most likely to lead to the change we seek. For example, anti-racist rhetoric is wisely chosen if it leads to a reduction in racist attitudes and practices. Rhetoric that fails to achieve this, or that may even reinforce racism in all its variants is to be avoided. The goal is to achieve results; all other objectives must be secondary.

Our rhetoric should help to build the most powerful and widely shared common front against the evil we are addressing, in this case racism. Rhetoric that alienates potential allies in the fight against racism should be avoided, while rhetoric that shows the common interests of all those who would benefit from reducing and ultimately eradicating racism should be our first choice.

While the above points are true, our rhetoric should also be truthful and accurate. It should not water down or cover up existing evil racist practices in the interest of maintaining friendly relations with everybody. To do that would be to abandon the goal, which is to reduce and erase racism in all its many forms. In other words, our rhetoric must “keep it principled” and maintain an unwavering focus on the evil we are combatting.

With these criteria in mind, I want to examine the current propensity of progressive and leftist producers of memes and analyses to use the language of “privilege” in attempts to combat racism. From the beginning, let me acknowledge that the language of white privilege is used in a wide array of ways, some with more nuance than others. A short essay like this cannot possibly get into all these differences between these different usages of the term. Perhaps a few who use the term white privilege do not fit the depiction I will be giving here, but I believe the more widely shared and popular usages of white privilege analysis fit the mold I will be portraying.

One thing that all proponents of white privilege share is that they wish to focus intently on the differences between those who are treated in a racially discriminatory manner and those who are not. They correctly perceive a widespread tendency among white U.S. residents to downplay, ignore, or even not be fully aware of the extreme differences in the way our society treats white folks and black folks or people of color in general. They also (correctly) know that the life prospects of whites versus non-whites in the U.S. overwhelmingly negatively affect the non-whites. The tragic loss of human potential and even to some degree loss of being treated with dignity or as a fully human being is evident, and the desire of white privilege proponents is to force white people to acknowledge and confront this reality.

The above sentiments are laudable, and I fully share the sentiment that the reality of institutional (and of course attitudinal) racism must be squarely faced and combated. However, I have a problem with the usage of the word “privilege” to describe all such racially discriminatory practices. What is the source of my objection?

Let’s examine the meaning of the word “privilege.” Dictionary.com defines privilege as 1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.

2. the unearned and mostly unacknowledged societal advantage that a restricted group of people has over another group: white privilege based on skin color; male privilege; children of privilege.

Both definitions point to a privilege as something given to people that they did not earn. The implication is that it is something they do not deserve. It should be taken away from them if we want to be fair or just. While that is not explicitly stated in the definitions, it is a strong implication to most people if they hear the word “privileged.” Applied to oneself, being called “privileged” is inevitably pejorative; it is something to be avoided or is something that is disapproved. Think of our attitude toward a young adult born into the lap of luxury whose parents bought them the best private schooling from kindergarten through an elite college like Harvard or Princeton (admission gained through a large donation to the college). We consider them privileged, and believe their treatment compared to an individual born into average circumstances to be unjust. The struggle for a better world includes ending such privileges: take away their unfair advantages.

Now consider the practice of labelling all white people by describing them as having white privilege. An average working-class white person is very likely to hear this as an attack upon him/her: they hear that they have undeserved privileges that probably should be taken away from them. They are likely to no longer listen to whoever made the accusation against them, insisting that they worked hard for whatever they have gotten, etc. This is not a good scenario for uniting people in a struggle against racism.

Even for those (relatively few) white working-class people who do not react defensively, the “white privilege” message is not productive. If they accept that they are privileged because their skin is white, this is a very dis-empowering message. It is highly unlikely to spur them into anti-racist action. Since their skin color is beyond their control, there is little that they can do to correct the situation. The white privilege analysis is very similar to the Christian doctrine of “original sin” — it is a deficiency that one is born with; it is beyond your control. The best that one can do is live with this undesirable condition (“whiteness”) and accept one’s unworthiness and inability to challenge what cannot be changed. The best that one can do is to realize one’s unworthiness and submit to the dictates of those not tainted by whiteness. This means unquestionably following the leadership of whoever is (falsely) considered the unquestioned leader of a unitary conflict-free non-white community that has no class distinctions within it. (No such community exists; like all communities the African American (or any non-white or non-advantaged) community is riven with class and other distinctions that lead to different interests and therefore political programs.)

The white privilege analysis is equally dis-empowering in non-white groups. Its focus is on victimhood within minority populations. A non-white person is offered few or no powerful or majoritarian opportunities to combat unequal treatment since most of the population is alleged to be permanently advantaged by the system simply based on their skin color, and therefore has an interest in perpetuating racism and discrimination.

Consider the situation of the following four people and how the white privilege analysis relates to each:

A. George is a white man born into a multi-millionaire family; his grandfather and father were both U.S. Senators and his father even became U.S. president. Despite his being a poor student his father bought his way into an Ivy League University and gave him tens of millions of dollars-worth of stock in Texas oil companies. George later becomes President of the U.S. (Think of George W. Bush).

B. Henry is a white man born into a poor family. His father worked as a janitor who faced frequent layoffs, while his mother had unstable jobs as a cashier at various gas stations. From age 8 up Henry was home alone frequently because both parents were working 2nd shift simultaneously. A mediocre student, Henry left high school and drifted through a few jobs until he landed on his current job as a road crew member in a non-union construction outfit. He supports a wife and two young children on wages that put the family right at the U.S. poverty line.

C. Emily is an African American woman who was raised in a solidly middle-class family; her father was a city administrator, and her mother was a public-school teacher. Emily went to the state university and is now Executive Vice President of a social welfare agency at an income of $110,000/year. Her husband is a lawyer working for the ACLU. Their combined family income approaches $200,000 per year.

D. Camille is an African American woman in her late 20s. She was raised by a single mother in poverty and unstable circumstances. Camille became pregnant at age 17 and ended up with a child but no adult partner. She has struggled to attain a stable life, and with the help of extended family caring for her 10-year-old daughter, she has just earned a GED high school degree and is working at an entry level office job, earning $21,000 a year.

Who among the four individuals detailed above deserves to be labeled as privileged? I would argue, only George. Here is a man given many unearned and undeserved privileges, and the world would indeed be better off if they were taken away from him and redistributed to those born into less favorable circumstances. But the white privilege analysis argues that Henry should also be accused of being privileged. Let’s examine the basis for this claim.

Henry lacks the generational wealth advantages and the “zip code” advantages that clearly privileged individuals like George possess. These types of advantages, which are clearly structural and systemic and full of obvious racial dimensions, are clearly absent from Henry’s life.

Yet according to the white privilege analysis, Henry is privileged because he will not face the possibility of being pulled over by policemen for a broken tail light and possibly killed; because he will not likely face the prospect of being beaten by cops for loitering on the street; because he will not face the possibility of being call the “n” word and being treated as less than human because of the color of his skin; because he will not face housing discrimination due to the color of his skin, because. . . we could go on and on with a list of the mistreatment Henry is not likely to face simply because his skin is of a certain color.

And all of that is true: Henry will not face these forms of mistreatment. But does not being mistreated mean that one is privileged? Is it a privilege to be given human rights? To me, receiving basic human rights should be considered a right, not a privilege. And no one will bristle and act defensively if they are told they have basic human rights, even if they are told that others are denied those same rights.

Upholders of the white privilege analysis believe that my analysis above will allow white people to downplay or ignore the racist treatment (institutionalized in major ways throughout U.S. society) of people of color? In their view, isn’t it necessary to accuse white people of having white privilege if we are to get them to own up to the deep racism carved into our society?

I don’t think that is the case. We can in fact get people (including white working-class people) to recognize and acknowledge the deep racism of our society and draw their attention to racist treatment of non-white folks without using the term “privileged” with all its disadvantages.

If we tell white U.S. citizens (particularly working class U.S. citizens who are white) that they have many human rights (we shouldn’t go overboard and say ALL human rights, as many poor and working class whites are also denied many such rights due to inability to “pay” for them), AND THAT MANY OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS ARE DENIED THESE SAME RIGHTS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN, we can then press the case for solidarity to extend those rights to all. That is not whitewashing or minimizing the deeply racist nature of current U.S. society. We can in fact press the case that all of us except the few who benefit from dividing us have a real material interest in combating racism and similar divisive doctrines.

For those who are cynical about such a “human rights — solidarity” message resonating with most white U.S. citizens: think how much harder it will ever be to get a receptive ear to accusations that they are privileged (implying they should lose their presumably unjustified advantages over people of color). The privilege language will immediately shut down receptivity to our anti-racist message. In fact, it is likely to drive a certain percentage of white working-class individuals right into the arms of Donald Trump and his ilk. It is also a dis-empowering message that at best will encourage apathy toward attempts to build a strong united working-class movement to combat all forms of discrimination and bigotry as well as class exploitation and extreme inequality.

Recall the criteria laid out earlier in this piece for effective anti-racist rhetoric. It should be language that is most likely to lead to our goal of decreasing and ultimately eradicating racism. And it should be most conducive to building a powerful and wide united front of all who have a stake in reducing racism. And it should not ignore or downplay the degree of racism in our society. I believe the “human rights — solidarity” framework is much more congruent with these criteria than are accusations to white working-class people that they are privileged. Let’s start using a more effective language!

(I want to acknowledge the incisive feedback and comments of Sean Armil on an earlier version of this essay. He is not responsible for any of its arguments — only I am — but it is much more sharply focused and clear thanks to his commentary.)

The formation of the United Auto Workers in the 1930s represented the upsurge in organized working class militancy that pushed forward a New Deal. Since that time the UAW has been a base of support for its members that collectively provides workers with a better life. Yet the UAW has weakened as its corrupt leadership has chosen compromise with the bosses over a robust internal democracy. That’s all about to change. The successful One Member, One Vote referendum has forced open the democratic process and created space for new leadership to rise up. We’ll discuss that and much more with UAW members Kay and Chris. The UAW is much more than just autoworkers. After threatening to strike, the 17,000 member Student Researchers Union of the University of California system won recognition and officially became the newest UAW local. How did these academic workers build a new organization? We hear directly from Kat and Laura of the SRU on how they made it happen.

In consultation with a number of progressive and environmental activists and organizations and two progressive members in the state legislature, the Delaware Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America have developed the following Green New Year’s Resolution for members of the Delaware General Assembly to endorse and to demonstrate their commitments among their fellow Delawareans and legislative colleagues. We ask you to join us as a sponsoring organization before we present it to our legislators.

Whereas the people of Delaware have elected us, their legislators, to place the interests of their well-being and that of the planet at the forefront of our actions, and

Whereas confronting the climate crisis, an existential threat to humanity, has been impeded by the short-sighted interests of powerful economic players, and

Whereas the New Year is traditionally a time to take stock and re-commit ourselves to the environment and the home of our constituents and ourselves,

Therefore, we members of the Delaware General Assembly do solemnly affirm and commit ourselves to the following Green New Year’s Resolutions:

• Support a Green Amendment to the Delaware Constitution, which would grant all people, including future generations, the right to clean air and water, a stable climate, and a healthy environment.
• Support House Bill 259, requiring use of the emergency alert system to inform people of catastrophic releases of toxic pollutants.
• Support legislation requiring agencies to assess the potential cumulative impacts on proposed industrial and development action and to mitigate the aggregated effects of environmental and human health hazards on Delawareans, especially the poor, the working class, and others most affected due to geographic location. 
• Support renewed funding for Open Space programs and Farmland Preservation.
• Support legislation to disallow Emission Reduction Credits in overburdened communities 
• Support robust compliance monitoring of state agencies with either an Inspector General or State Environmental Justice Board
• Ensure that PFAS settlement funds are managed equitably, effectively, and transparently. 
• Reject campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests, including banks that fund fossil fuel projects.

It’s never been easy to be a front-line retail or customer service worker at the holidays, and with a dramatic surge in COVID cases affecting New York City, this year is even harder. For our Revolutions per Minute holiday special, we’re joined live by Eric Dirnbach of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, DSA’s national project in partnership with the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, as well as Aria, a retail worker who participated in a successful strike last year at the Good Vibrations sex shop in Massachusetts with support from EWOC.

Plus, a special correspondent, Shen, visits the picket line in Chinatown to speak with Liang, a restaurant worker at the historic dim sum restaurant Jing Fong.

We are fundraising for the WBAI end of year Tower Fund with some help from our NYC-DSA chorus, Sing in Solidarity. Give to the Tower Fund at towerfund.wbai.org and follow our chorus on Twitter @nycdsachoir.

Sign the petition to support Jing Fong workers and stop displacement in Chinatown at bit.ly/stopdisplacement.

Are you a retail or service worker looking for support organizing your worksite? You are not alone. Support and help is available. Visit https://workerorganizing.org/support/. 

2021 has been another incredibly tough year, with the pandemic and climate crisis exacerbating income inequality and dire living situations for working class people across the globe.

 

Tonight we’ll catch up with a few DSA working groups to talk about the organizing they’ve done to build working class power and solidarity this year and what’s coming up for 2022. Our guests tonight are Joel from the BDS and Palestine Solidarity Working Group on the Boycott Puma campaign and the power of a consumer boycott, Emma Claire from the Healthcare Working Group on universal healthcare and labor rights for home health care workers, and Josh and Robert from Eco-Socialists on the Green New Deal for Public Schools and the New York Public Power campaign.

 

To learn more or get involved with NYC-DSA's eco-socialist organizing, visit https://ecosocialists.nyc/join-us/.

 

Find NYC-DSA's Healthcare Working Group on Twitter or Facebook @NYCDSAHealth or email the organizers at healthcare@socialists.nyc.

 

Curious about the BDS movement and DSA's Palestine solidarity work? View the primer and FAQ: https://palestine.dsausa.org/palestine-and-bds-faq/.

 

Throughout this episode and all our remaining 2021 episodes, we are fundraising for WBAI's rent on the transmitter at 4 Times Square. We encourage all who are able to donate what they can, even a small amount, toward this important community institution. Visit towerfund.wbai.org to give. 

Gary Dorrien's new book American Democratic Socialism is a comprehensive look at the deep roots, many of them religious, of democratic socialism in this country. Rev. Andrew Wilkes spoke with Professor Dorrien at a live event in New York City at Judson Memorial Church, where this podcast was recorded.

We are appalled to learn the details of Mi Familia Vota CEO Hector Sanchez Barba’s decision to fire two members of the Nevada staff. Interim, out-of-state superiors yelled at the Nevada staff and told them they had ten minutes to leave the facility, which included threats to call the police on an undocumented person. In a show of solidarity with their peers, the rest of the organizing staff submitted notice that they would end their employment with Mi Familia Vota at the end of the month. Their superiors denied them the opportunity to work through the holidays, and demanded their resignation immediately.

Sanchez Barba’s organization claims to be “advocating for workers’ rights” and “empowering the immigrant community.” However, these abhorrent actions show that he is another fake progressive leader who is more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with standing in solidarity with marginalized people.

We have removed Mi Familia Vota as a partner from our upcoming Holiday Solidarity event, which serves our community by providing meals to families in need. We refuse to work with an organization that treats its workers in this way, or threatens our undocumented community members. The volunteers and community members who have previously engaged with Mi Familia Vota are welcome to still participate in Holiday Solidarity, in a show of solidarity with the community.

We stand with workers, and especially with the undocumented members of our community who are repeatedly victimized by those in positions of power. Las Vegas DSA will amplify any demands or calls for repair from the workers affected while we consider our own future relationship with Mi Familia Vota.

Signed:

Aimee H.
Alvin C.
Anthony L.
Jackie S.
Lorenzita S.
Mike Y.
Minnie W.
Paul John C.
Shaun N.
Tiffany S.

 

*and Cypress Hills, and Ocean Hill!

Believe it or not, 2022 is right around the corner and will bring with it a new electoral cycle and a new slate of DSA-endorsed socialist candidates for office. On tonight’s show, we kick off our series of interviews with NYC-DSA’s 2022 slate as we speak LIVE with Samy Nemir Olivares, candidate for Assembly District 54 in Bushwick, Cypress Hills, and Ocean Hill. Hear from Samy on their experience as a community organizer in North Brooklyn, the radical legacy of queer and trans people of color, the next steps for socialists in Albany, and smashing gender binaries right alongside capitalism.

 

We also speak to Gabriel Hernandez of NYC-DSA’s Queer Caucus on building queer community and mentorship for socialists. Finally, we hear a brief update on the struggle for free, equitable higher education for all from the New Deal for CUNY coalition.

 

To learn more about Samy Nemir-Olivares and support his run for Assembly, visit: https://www.samyfornewyork.com/

 

To learn more about NYC-DSA’s Queer Caucus, sign up for their mailing list here: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/queer-caucus-interest-form

 

For more on the December 11 action for a New Deal for CUNY, visit: https://psc-cuny.org/SatDec11

Working class struggle continues to spread across New York City and the rest of the country. Wirecutter workers at the New York Times have launched their strike, joining the 3,000 Columbia academic workers on the picket line. 14,000 Kroger workers in Houston have authorized a strike while 24,000 academic workers at the University of California have done the same. Rank-n-file reform slate Teamsters United won a sea-changing victory in leadership elections. New leadership has promised more labor militancy and committed the 1.3 million member union to organizing Amazon facilities and drivers across the country. Earlier this month the New York Taxi Workers Alliance declared victory after a hunger strike forced the city government to acquiesce to their demand to cancel millions in debt and restructure their loan. We’re joined by Jaslin Kaur and Augustine to hear about this fight and what it means for working class New Yorkers. Last week a Wisconsin court allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to walk free despite the fact that he shot, wounded, and killed protesters in Kenosha. We’ll play you sounds from the streets as protesters reacted to this injustice here in Brooklyn.

Xcel Energy is the largest provider of energy in the state of Colorado. If you live in the Metro Denver area, chances are Xcel is your electric utility. Thanks to community and activist efforts over the years, Colorado has passed measures forcing the company to increase its use of clean, renewable energy. Despite this, Xcel still sources 63% of its energy from fossil fuels and continues to oppose efforts to move faster. 

Meanwhile Xcel siphons over half a billion in profits annually to Wall Street investors, and seeks to grow that annually, despite electricity becoming cheaper thanks to renewables. 

A key opportunity to shift Xcel to clean, affordable and renewable energy is its Electric Resource Plan (ERP). An ERP is a ten year plan for how Xcel will power the state and how much they can profit from it. The ERP maps out what coal and gas plants close and by when as well as what new projects like wind and solar will come on line. 

Xcel’s Plan to Increase Our Energy Bills and Continue Fossil Fuel Profiteering

Xcel released their preferred plan in 2021 and unsurprisingly they want to keep profiting off fossil fuels at the expense of us and the planet. 

Key items include: 

• Increasing our energy bills to line the pockets of Wall Street investors
• Running the state’s largest coal plant, Comanche 3, until 2035
• Running the Cherokee CC gas plant until 2055
• Running the Arapahoe gas plant until an unknown date

Continued pollution and fueling the climate crisis literally means more death in already suffering communities.

Denver Ecosocialists’ Clean Energy Plan for the People

Instead we need a plan that will lower our energy bills, transition to clean energy and democratize the grid.

We demand the following: 

• Close all coal plants and the Arapahoe and Cherokee gas plants by 2030
• Transition to 100% renewable energy for Denver by 2030
• Help coal and natural gas plant employees’ transition to new jobs by covering their workplace training costs and guarantee them a well-paying union job
• Increase rooftop solar by lifting the net metering cap and paying us fully for the electricity we contribute to the grid from solar panels
• Democratize the grid by building rooftop solar, parking lot solar, community owned  storage, and upgrading the grid to support this distributed energy.
• Finance all new projects through public banking to save money and invest money back into our communities (not Wall Street).
• Lower our energy bills by passing on the savings renewable energy will bring, not allow Xcel to keep raising rates and pocketing the profits.

How We Win

Xcel’s Electricity Resource Plan must be approved by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), a section of our state government. The PUC exists to, 

“serve the public interest by effectively regulating utilities and facilities so that the people of Colorado receive safe, reliable, and reasonably-priced services consistent with the economic, environmental and social values of our state.”

Four governor-appointed people serve on the PUC- 

• Republican Doug Dean, Director
• Democrat Eric Blank, Commissioner
• Democrat Megan Gilman, Commissioner 
• Independent John C. Gavan, Commissioner

Their track record of regulating Xcel “consistent with the economic, environmental and social values of our state” is a mixed bag, to put it generously. However, when public attention is on, they have followed through with their responsibilities.

It’s up to each of us to raise our voices and make clear to the PUC that they need to stand up to Xcel’s lobbyists and do the right thing by passing a plan that reduces our energy bills by shifting to clean, affordable and renewable energy.

Thousands Of Us Commented on the Plan

All Colorado residents, regardless of age and citizenship, can leave a public comment on Electric Resource Plans. Every comment is read and tallied by the PUC.

Over a thousand people commented in favor of clean energy, much more than the opposition. You can read those comments by visiting the Colorado Government’s Archive of Electronic Filings.

Search for Documents with a Proceeding Number of 21A-0141E and Document Type Comments.

Pueblo Residents Demand the Comanche Coal Plant Close

On October 28, 2021 over two hundred Pueblo residents spoke out against Xcel’s plan to run the state’s largest, dirtiest coal plant, until 2040. 2030 is the absolute latest we can run coal to avoid the worst of an already worsening climate crisis.

Over Hundred Coloradans Speak Out at the Statewide Public Hearing

Hundreds again showed up on December 2, 2021 to continue demanding a swift and just transition. The meeting was scheduled to end at 6pm but ran well past 7. Person after person spoke out in favor of the above demands.

Over One Hundred Colorado Residents Attend Public Hearing on Xcel’s Electric Resource Plan Demanding a Just Climate Transition

Organizing in Response to the Final Electric Resource Plan

The Public Utility Commission will announce their final decision on Xcel’s Electric Resource Plan in the spring of 2022.

We’re organizing contingency plans for the various outcomes that could come out from this process. Whatever the PUC decides, we’ll continue to work to end the fossil fuel era, democratize the grid and win energy justice.

If you have any other questions or just want to get involved, email us at ecosocialist.committee@denverdsa.org or attend an upcoming meeting.

We have a world to win!