Do you think sexism and racism are encouraged by the state?

[MisguidedSheep]

Something I was thinking about earlier is how the state might be using sexism, racism, and religion to divide the working class. I mean when people see each other not as fellow humans, but as divided groups, doesn't this make them easier to control? Wouldn't you agree that the state encouraged men and women to hate each other, races and nations to be in conflict, and religion to be intolerant of other religions? It just seems to useful to ignore.. what is easier to rule over, a united working class or one divided by petty things like race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[Diagoras]

Yes and no. I do not think that racism and sexism are inherent features of states. However, historically the state has used both to divide the working class when it has been convenient. The government has actively and purposefully antagonized white/black relations in the United States as a means of dividing union strength over the last few centuries. If you keep one segment of the population afraid of the other, then, as was the case in the U.S., poor and exploited whites often sided with their exploiters to retain a small bit of (actual and perceived) privilege. This began during slavery when the local governments made it illegal for whites and blacks to even interact in many spaces (for fear of collaboration in slave/worker revolts), and extended as it became institutionalized ideologically and institutionally, even post slavery (economic segregation through the legal construction of ghettos to contain ethnic minorities, and the "black codes"). Concepts of "race" and "nation" are used ubiquitously today by states, especially when an enemy needs to be manufactured as a means of rallying a populace behind a war.

Regarding sexism, the state has used it through de facto and de jure methods as a means of denying women access to social and economic power. Unfortunately, the labor movement itself has had a history of chauvinism, even at its height (though obviously it was not universal), that can not be pinned entirely on the state.

Religion has historically been used by states of many kinds to provide an ideological buttress to its publicly perceived legitimacy and to assist in the manufacture of a notion of cultural and communal "unity". Imagined communities, and all that jazz. I have no doubt that most people who use religion (and the religious leaders as well who lend the weight of their words to influence their lemmings) to support the actions of the state actually believe the associations they make between the two... indeed the usefulness of such a tool that sways mass opinions without the need for evidence is a wonderful indictment of religious thought. In other words, I would not just consider religion a passive entity that has been manipulated by the big bad state. It has harmful elements in its very philosophical assumptions that lend to the ease with which it is utilized by the state and its ideological apparatuses.

[Invincible Summer]

I do not think that outright institutional racism (e.g. the state creates racist laws such as Apartheid or something) is very common or even exists in most modern states.

However, I do think that the state does perpetuate ethnic/racial "othering" through the media; for example, when a black person commits a crime, it will be front page news. But when a black person is victimized, it will be pushed back in the newspaper.

Furthermore, surveys and polls that list statistics by ethnic/racial demographics also encourages competition/antagonisms towards other ethnic/racial groups.


Again, I don't think institutionalized sexism really exists, but it does on an individual level, which is bred out of religious values (man came first, woman wouldn't exist if it weren't for man or whatever).

Religion has always been used to control, which is why it should be minimized in a revolutionary/post-revolutionary society to only be practiced in the home.