Is there a critique of privilege from the perspective of class

Both theories are useless for anything other than rabble rousing.

>>1482892
Smh senpai desu

>>1482876
>Is there a critique of privilege from the perspective of class analysis?
yes.
Marx.

File: 1458138478645.png (341KB, 441x433px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 441x433px

>>1482876
>Why would elite whites give two shits about lower class whites, just because they're both white?

I think that's a misrepresentation of their thesis. "Whites" (read: WASPS) purportedly cultivated a system that would be advantageous to their kin, and passively disadvantageous to non-kin. This is supported by (incorrect) claims of racial/gender disparity in the workplace, education systems, and prison-industrial systems.

They don't give a shit about poor whites, of course - it is indisputably better to be a rich black man than a poor white man in the West today. This is something an old-school Communist could agree with, entirely complimenting their tenets of class conflicts being greater than race conflicts. It's such common sense that one leers at these "identity politics" with the suspicion of capitalists interests recuperating and neutralizing revolutionary ideology.
The fact that identity politics conveniently emerge to take the heat off of international finance (OWS, Hillary's electoral run) have nothing to do with this at all, I'm sure.

>t. fucking white male

File: marxintro[1].jpg (163KB, 815x1024px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 815x1024px

>>1482906
How can one man be so based

Reminder.

There is no such thing as "White"

There are people with pale skin and there are Europeans. Sometimes they cross.

File: 3394002_orig[1].jpg (109KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x427px

>[Historically], liberalism was quite a noble project if one looks at how it emerged. Today it is a quite fashionable criticism with feminists, anti-Eurocentric thinkers, etc., to dismiss liberalism in principle for preaching the equality of all people, but in reality privileging the white males of certain property, addressing automatic limitations. The next usual accusation is that liberalism is ultimately founded in what the American moral-majority religious Right likes to call secular humanism: the idea is that there is no Supreme Being or mystery in the universe. Their criticism is that this idea — that the ultimate prospect of humankind is to take over as master of his own destiny — is man’s arrogance, criticizing that it always misfires and so on…

(sniff)

>I don’t think it is as simple as that…It is an historic fact that at the beginning, the idea of human rights and all of those liberal notions, effectively in a coded way implied the exclusion of certain people. Nonetheless, in this tension between appearance and reality (appearance: everyone has human rights; reality: many, through an implicit set of sub-rules, are excluded), a certain tension is set in motion where you cannot simply say that appearance is just a mask of the reality of oppression. Appearance acquired a social emancipatory power of its own…[A]t the beginning, women were excluded, but then very early on, women said, “Sorry, why not also us?” Then blacks said, “Why not us?” And workers, and so on. My point being that all of these groups that criticize liberalism emerged out of these early bourgeois liberal traditions. It set certain rules — this tradition of universality of human rights and so on — and in this way it opened up the space.

File: 2015_11_zizek_books[1].jpg (458KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1280x800px

>>1482960
>"We white Leftist men and women [should] leave behind the politically correct process of endless self-torturing guilt . . . [Western] politically correct self-flagellation is an inverted form of clinging to one's superiority. . . The positive form of the White Man's Burden (his responsibility for civilizing the colonized barbarians) is thus merely replaced by its negative form (the burden of the white man's guilt: if we can no longer be the benevolent masters of the Third World, we can at least be the privileged source of evil, patronizingly depriving others of responsibility for their fate (when a Third World country engages in terrible crimes, it is never fully its own responsibility, but always an after effect of colonization)."

I feel pretty lucky to be white. I have a higher IQ than blacks and I'm more compulsive than asians. We get shit done and we do it well enough.

File: e5c7d32127ed12999196b642987dd27a4516bb53.png (115KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 557x605px

>>1482876
>implying "whites" or "privilege" exists

I'm so glad this brand of identity politics has largely remained on your side of the pond.

>>1482876
>and I'm not convinced that these women studies fuckers have figured out some system of analysis that beats Marxism
they haven't
its just Capitalist thinkers adopting the ideas of socialism/marxism and twisting them so they cannot hurt the Capitalist system.

So let's assume the best, that both critiques don't make any overall value-judgements, that they are "objective".

Even under those optimal conditions, doesn't either critique fall apart when you implement the value-judgements arrived at after the Genealogy of Morality? Ideas like "privilege" "racism" etc would be discounted because they arise out of a negative reaction rather than more optimal positive theories.

>>1482912
I would fuck her.


I would unload my cis white male jizz over that face, obviously as a show of patriarchal dominance.