Winston: It is my contention that there should be no room in the minds of progressives for such concepts as class treason. It could be posited that if a person from a priviledged class rejects his position and instead works with the lower classes to help advance their interests, he is a class traitor. Or, if a person from a lower class identifies with the interests of the priviledged class, he is a class traitor. However, to view it in such a manner would be to completely ignore the humanity of these situations. Something of which progressives can never do, that is if they wish to remain progressives.
The first example represents an individual who has discovered, or rediscovered, his humanity and is seeking to help rehumanize others, as well. The second example represents an individual, as there are many of this type of individual, who has fallen into the capitalist trap of measuring success monetarily. This person has been mislead and we as progressives should not alienate him further by placing the label of traitor upon him. Instead, we must reach out to this individual with compassion, not strike out at him with antagonistic labels. As the proverb goes, "It is the ignorant man who is the first to wag his tongue. The wise man gives not only knowledge, but love to his fellow man."
So, in a word, class treason does not exist. It is merely a distraction from the focus of regaining our humanity, of which will be the death blow to capitalism.
Furthermore, I fail to see the connection between your second example and the original piece. Where was there any mention of using 'class traitor' as a synonym for'sellout'? I don't think the piece's author was talking about lower economic status individuals who jump at gaining a piece of the pie. That would be both self-righteous and not productive. As a formerly middle-class individual, I am consciously choosing to forgo some of the advantages we usually presume come with an ivy-league education. That doesn't mean I give the welfare families on my street a hard time for spending a large portion of their money on various forms of instant gratification. (They are probably never going to own a house so why should they bother acting as if they were?)
The original piece of writing seems to be concerned specifically with the importance of solidarity across class lines for the sake of our common humanity. Our social structure stays in place largely because a large percentage of our population is unwilling to risk losing the perceived advantages of their current economic and racial status.
Offering information that demonstrates that it is not just poor folk who are getting screwed by capitalism and emphasizing the importance of class treason by those who are willing to put all humanity ahead of personal economic comfort are just two progressive strategies for promoting the kind of change that we both agree is necessary.
Todd: Winston, it seems our misunderstanding has to do with who is doing the labelling. I, and RC, the original author of 'Class Treason?', are not positing an argument, but rather are trying to apply a concept with which we are familiar (race treason) to another area of our lives. Race traitors (a self selected moniker) believe that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity." This is to say that we feel morally obligated to not only acknowledge the priviledges that are accrued in our culture solely because of our white skin but to actively fight against the continuance of such priviledges. One way to abolish the effectiveness of white dominance is for ostensibly white people to throw a wrench in the system. When there are enough race traitors, whites will not be able to assume that other whites are, by definition, "on their side." They will have to get beyond skin color to determine an individual's worldview. In this sense, the white race, and its smug sense of its own superiority and perpetual dominance, can be abolished to the benefit of all of us.
Applying this principle to class issues is not a perfect parallel but it can serve as a useful metaphor. Keep in mind that we are not talking about labelling others- we are trying to find a name for what it is we are trying to achieve. How much willful downward mobility will it take to send a convincing message to our consumerist, greedy culture? Who can say? The point is, by naming our efforts proudly, we can avoid just opting out. I have nothing against hippies, but that route is too passive for me. I believe in people. I don't believe in our current system. We are trying to fight the system from within while maintaining at least some personal intregrity. To do this, we must acknowledge and renounce the ways in which we are priviledged. We must actively be race and class traitors. This is what RC was getting at. If you would like to discuss how best to deal with the other side of the coin (upwardly mobile sellouts or traitors) in a humanistic, non-hypocritical way, that's great. I think it is important since most of us are hypocritical in one way or another. Conservative forces in this country often emphasize our imperfections as a way of making systemic progress seem futile. We don't have to fall for it. We don't have to be perfect to improve the system. We just have to stop playing by their rules, whether it is boycotting, marching, or performing small acts of progressive treason, etc...
For more info on the Race Traitor concept, visit RACE TRAITOR Journal. It is a wonderful magazine that can and should speak for itself.
| Home Page |
Race & Gender | Education & Families | Economics & Class | Politics & Institutions | COMMENTS: Read 'em or Add to 'em |
E-Mail Us | Submit your Writing! |