Yea. The overwhelming majority of white people in the USA are part of the working class by virtue of their relationship to the means of production. Their revolutionary potential is also a consequence of their relationship to the means of production. Yea, it gets refracted through racial/cultural/whatever lenses, but if you’re not starting your analysis from the point above you’re not doing Marxist analysis, and I’d tend to disagree with you.
Yeah, what I’m saying is that the whole book of settlers essentially argues that being white in America precludes one from being part of the proletariat, due to the relationship to capital that white colonials and settlers had. They had land ownership or even the promise of land ownership, and while they were not true capitalists, their relationship to capital was closer to the real capitalists than it was to the non-white underclasses.
Take a look at the book, it’s a pretty good read. Again, I don’t know if I agree with it, but it has some valid arguments.
The “white working class” has largely been dealt in by the bourgeoisie in the US. Most see themselves as potential petite bourgeois if they play by the rules and do the bidding of the capitalists.
