Today, The Guardian serves more as an ideological hub for a privileged, self-satisfied professional-managerial class than as a traditional newspaper. Its editorial stance is driven not by the needs of the oppressed or working people, but by the concerns, ambitions, and economic interests of a narrow social group whose wealth and status rely on the stability of capitalism.1
Identity politics serves as the common language within this
environment. It acts as an ideological tool that dissolves class conflicts,
replacing them with a moral classification based on identities, privileges, and
‘‘positionalities.’’ The Guardian has adopted this perspective as a
comprehensive interpretive model—one that accounts for everything except the
fundamental structure of capitalist society. Consequently, the publication
consistently champions notions of ‘‘justice’’ while upholding the social system
that prevents true justice from being achieved.2
The Guardian’s identity-politics framework is based on a
straightforward yet politically impactful idea: that race, gender, and
sexuality are the main factors shaping social life, not class. This idea is not
only incorrect but also reactionary in its political implications. 3
By framing social conflict as a clash between identity
groups, the Guardian conceals the core opposition between the working class and
capitalists. It shifts from material analysis to moral judgment, from
structural critique to therapeutic talk, and from political action to personal
confession. This isn't a mere coincidence but a reflection of the interests of
a class that stands to lose much.
The Guardian’s racial discourse operates as a closed system,
with core assumptions left unchallenged: that racial identity is a crucial
political factor, that whiteness has a longstanding influence, and that the
working class—especially its largest part—is inherently suspicious. In this
view, social progress is attributed to elite-led “representation” rather than
widespread activism. As a result, the working class is often seen as
problematic—regarded as too backward, provincial, “privileged,” or overly white.
The Guardian’s writers usually discuss workers with a mix of fear and
condescension, akin to Victorian liberals’ view of the “dangerous classes.”
The Guardian’s approach to identity politics tends to erase
historical context. It overlooks key events like the interracial strikes of the
1930s, the CIO’s extensive organising campaigns, multiracial alliances in the
civil rights movement, and the integrated struggles of miners, autoworkers, and
dockworkers. It also ignores the global history of socialist and anti-colonial
movements rooted in class solidarity. Recognising these facts would mean
accepting that racial divisions are not fixed or impossible to overcome—that,
through struggle, the working class has repeatedly bridged racial divides.
Instead, the Guardian advances a historical narrative that
portrays racial oppression as the only driving force in American and British
history, while rendering class struggle invisible or disguising it as racial
conflict. This is not true history; it is mythology used to suppress political
engagement. The Guardian’s focus on identity politics serves a key political
role: it redirects social anger from the capitalist system onto the working
class itself.
By framing white workers as the main barrier to progress,
the Guardian provides a convenient scapegoat for liberal capitalism's failures.
This perspective helps the Democratic and Labour Parties, along with their
wealthy supporters, avoid facing their own roles in austerity, war, inequality,
and the dismantling of public services. Identity politics then serves as a
moral excuse for a political elite that has long abandoned even superficial
social reform. Consequently, the Guardian’s editorial stance benefits the
ruling class by dividing and demoralising workers, reducing their political
activism, while leaving the fundamental structures of capitalist power intact.
The Class Basis of Grundy’s Argument
This is why the paper favours academics like Saida Grundy.
Her thesis—that white workers are inherently reactionary—mirrors the worldview
of The Guardian rather than being an isolated view. Saida Grundy, a sociologist
at Boston University, exemplifies the ideological stance of the current
professional-managerial upper class. Rather than offering true scholarship or
sociological analysis, her article acts as a political tool aimed at dividing
the working class. Its goal is to “sow division, contempt, and fatalism,”
serving as a pseudo-intellectual justification for the Democratic Party’s shift
away from class-based politics towards racialist frameworks.
Grundy’s argument is based on the material interests of the
wealthy upper-middle class she represents. Her claim that white workers “choose
racial domination over putting food on the table" is not only factually
questionable but also mirrors the political fears of a social group that
depends on maintaining capitalism and suppressing class consciousness.
This argument aligns with a broader ideological view that emphasises
racial identity over class as the main focus of political analysis. It weakens
universalist politics and portrays most of the American working class as
inherently reactionary. This perspective favours a privileged group that views
both white and non-white workers with distrust and hostility.
The Falsification of Electoral Reality
Grundy argues that white workers mostly vote Republican
because of racial hostility. However, this claim is based on misleading and
biased data. The main story of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was not the
large number of white workers switching to Trump, but rather the nearly 99
million eligible voters who abstained, reflecting widespread disillusionment
with both capitalist parties. Among those who did vote, economic issues were
the dominant concern.4
The 2020 election highlights the limitations of the
racialist narrative.5 Joseph Biden’s wins
were mostly among white workers, especially those without college degrees.
Conversely, Trump saw increased support from wealthier African American,
Latino, and LGBT voters. These patterns suggest that economic class, not racial
identity, is the key factor influencing voting behaviour. Grundy’s framework
misses this fact, as it relies on dismissing class differences and replacing
them with racial essentialism. This approach aligns with the Democratic Party’s
political aims and the social groups it represents.6
The Cynical Abuse of W.E.B. Du Bois
Grundy references W.E.B. Du Bois’s idea of the
“psychological wages of whiteness” to bolster her argument. However, this use
significantly warps Du Bois’s original Marxist analysis.7
In Black Reconstruction in America, Du Bois contended that
the Southern elite used the concept of a “public and psychological wage” to
persuade poor whites to accept their economic exploitation. Importantly, Du Bois saw this as a tactic by
the ruling class to hinder interracial working-class unity.8
Grundy challenges this analysis by framing the
“psychological wages” as an inherent trait of white workers, rather than as a
historically specific tool used by the bourgeoisie. This shift not only
distorts Du Bois’s argument but also removes its revolutionary significance.
The document highlights that Grundy’s reinterpretation is effectively “a
betrayal of Du Bois’s Marxist method.”
Erasing the History of Interracial Class Struggle
Grundy’s narrative reflects the racial essentialism seen in
the 1619 Project, portraying American history as an ongoing lineage of white
supremacy and omitting the importance of class struggle.
This depiction is historically incorrect. U.S. history
features many instances of working-class solidarity across races, such as the
CIO's extensive organising in the 1930s, multiracial wildcat strikes post-World
War II, and civil rights-era movements driven by socialist and labour activists.9
These episodes show that racial divisions, though real and
historically important, are neither fixed nor insurmountable. Eliminating these
divisions is essential for Grundy’s argument, which relies on depicting white
workers as naturally opposed to progress. As the document notes, recognising
this history would “expose the bankruptcy of her racial essentialism.”
The Political Function: Justifying the Democrats’
Rightward Turn
Grundy’s article functions more as a political statement
than an academic analysis. Its goal is to defend the Democratic Party’s
emphasis on Wall Street, intelligence agencies, and the affluent upper-middle
class.10
If white workers are viewed as hopelessly racist, the
Democratic Party need not prioritise their economic issues. Instead, it can
continue to support the financial elite while advocating for "racial
justice." This approach advantages a privileged social segment that fears
the working class more than the far right. The Guardian is central to this
strategy, acting as a hub for racialist politics promoted by the
professional-managerial class.
The Socialist Alternative
This article challenges racialist myths by emphasising the
unity of the American working class, described as "the most diverse in the
world" and including people of all races, nationalities, and backgrounds.
Their commonality lies not in their individual identities but in their shared
relationship to the means of production. Socialists seek to build a movement
that bridges racial gaps and promotes the collective class interests of all
workers. Racialist ideas—whether promoted by The Guardian, the Democratic
Party, or the identity-politics scholarly industry—are employed by the ruling
class as tools to prevent the development of a united, politically conscious
working class.
The solution to Trumpism is not to demonise white workers,
but to build a revolutionary socialist party that can lead the working class in
its fight against capitalism.
Notes
1. “It
is not scholarship. It is not an analysis. It is a political weapon aimed
squarely at the working class…”
2. Ibid.
3. For
analysis of identity politics as a class ideology, see Adolph Reed Jr., Class
Notes (New York: New Press, 2000).
4. “The
abstention of 99 million eligible voters…”
5. See
Pew Research Centre, “Voters’ Issue Priorities in 2016,” 2016.
6. “Biden’s
gains came from white workers… Trump increased his support among wealthier
African American, Latino, and LGBT voters”.
7. W.E.B.
Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880 (New York: Harcourt,
Brace, 1935), 700–701.
8. “This
is a falsification of history and a betrayal of Du Bois’s Marxist method”.
9. See
Lizabeth Cohen, Making a New Deal (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1990).
10.See
Jeremy Brecher, Strike! (Boston: South End Press, 1997).
