Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

[Terminator X]

Ron Paul does it again - says something batshit crazy just as "liberal libertarians" and some so-called leftists build a case to try to convince people that he's not a raving lunatic. Stop falling for it, please, he's a reactionary old fool.



Ron, like his son, said that his statement about the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with the law's intentions -- i.e. ending institutionalized discrimination in a wide swath of American life, including in the public accommodations where African Americans were denied service at the height of the Jim Crow era. Paul said he would vote against the law because it imposed unfair rules on what private business owners can and can't do on their own property. Essentially, they should be free to discriminate if they wish, Paul says, however distasteful that may be.
Paul:

I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can't walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and states rights therefore I'm a racist. That's just outlandish. Paul added that any talk of the segregated South that the Civil Rights Act aimed to reform is too old to be relevant anyway, saying the specter of Whites Only signs is "ancient history."


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-i-would-not-have-voted-for-the-1964-civil-rights-act-video.php?ref=fpa

[MattShizzle]

Not surprised. He's an idiot and as reactionary as they come.

[Heathen Communist]

It's sad that reactionary, nationalist, hyper-capitalist fools like this manage to have a place in American politics.:thumbdown:

[durhamleft]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

So yeah, I know that will go down like a lead balloon on here but I see where he's coming from on it: and while he is something of a reactionary to simplify it to 'he opposes the civil rights act so he's racist' misses the point; it has nothing to do with whether he's racist or not, it comes down to whether the law should prevent racism, and I think it's bonkers to say it should.

[Tenka]

He lives in Texas, he believes property rights trump everything, and he hates black people. Ron Paul would have The South rise again.

[Terminator X]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

So yeah, I know that will go down like a lead balloon on here but I see where he's coming from on it: and while he is something of a reactionary to simplify it to 'he opposes the civil rights act so he's racist' misses the point; it has nothing to do with whether he's racist or not, it comes down to whether the law should prevent racism, and I think it's bonkers to say it should.

I don't think we (well, at least me) are attacking Paul for the racist aspect of this specific statement (in regards to the Civil Rights Act); it's more about his completely insane views on property rights as a whole, which, by extension, make him a racist.

[WeAreReborn]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

So yeah, I know that will go down like a lead balloon on here but I see where he's coming from on it: and while he is something of a reactionary to simplify it to 'he opposes the civil rights act so he's racist' misses the point; it has nothing to do with whether he's racist or not, it comes down to whether the law should prevent racism, and I think it's bonkers to say it should.
No it shouldn't be their right at all. Equality>Freedom of property.

[Psy]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

Why should it be their choice? It is not even fair under the logic of capitalism, under capitalism capital only have the right to use the means of production to maximize profits and any other use of property (like turning away paying customers) are not protected under the rights of capitalism especially now that the bourgeoisie is more then happy to take the money of consumers regardless of race and gender.

And of course Marxist and Anarchists don't see the current owners of property having any right over property.

[MattShizzle]

I have to agree this alone doesn't show him to be racist (though I wouldn't be surprised if he is racist.) However, it does show he thinks just because someone owns a business that they should be allowed to treat both customers and potential employess differently on the basis of race (and other differences.) This is a reactionary way of thinking.

[jake williams]

If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.
Restrict.

Ron Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is a logical extension of his other political and economic views. If you advocate policies which systematically relegate black people, or any other racial or ethnic group, to the status of second class citizens, you're a racist whether or not you hold specific a priori racist views.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

my solution: 1. get rid of private property, 2. chop ron paul's head off - i'll do it if someone supplies me the guillotine.

[MattShizzle]

Restrict.

Ron Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is a logical extension of his other political and economic views. If you advocate policies which systematically relegate black people, or any other racial or ethnic group, to the status of second class citizens, you're a racist whether or not you hold specific a priori racist views.

I disagree that it makes you a racist but it does make you OK with racism (small but true distinction.) However, the post this was a reaction to does demonstrate that poster not only is fine with capitalism (ie no problem with 1 person owning a hotel) but thinks they should be allowed to discriminate so I agree that restriction is a good idea.

[Sir Comradical]

It's sad that reactionary, nationalist, hyper-capitalist fools like this manage to have a place in American politics.:thumbdown:

As opposed to all the other US politicians who are lovely.

[Sir Comradical]

Can someone explain to me what the fuck Ron Paul is going on about?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Can someone explain to me what the fuck Ron Paul is going on about?

essentially he's defending property 'rights' and using racism as a backdrop for doing so. that's the basic gist of it.

[Ocean Seal]

Freedom like Americans had after the Revolutionary War? The freedom to systematically discriminate, the freedom to oppress? Well call me authoritarian but those aren't freedom's that I want.

[Terminator X]

Can someone explain to me what the fuck Ron Paul is going on about?

Basically that property owners can do whatever the fuck they want. I also believe Paul said in the past (it could have been another politician, so excuse me if I'm wrong) that only property owners should have the right to vote in elections.

[Sir Comradical]

essentially he's defending property 'rights' and using racism as a backdrop for doing so. that's the basic gist of it.


Basically that property owners can do whatever the fuck they want. I also believe Paul said in the past (it could have been another politician, so excuse me if I'm wrong) that only property owners should have the right to vote in elections.

Ahh yes, some idiot libertarian explained this to me once. He said that in a "free society" racial inequality would be eliminated in the following way. Firstly if a racial group is poorer, then vendors should be able to sell products to them at a lower price as race-based price discrimination would maximise profits for vendors. This would eventually increase the welfare of the poorer race. Same argument applies apparently for hiring workers.

I was temped to Katyn his ass...

[¿Que?]

You know, I'm not a big fan of Rachael Maddow, but she argues that Republicans in the south during the 60's and 70's used a strategy of being blatantly racist so as to lock the white vote. I don't know if this has anything to do with anything, but Ron Paul did just announce his candidacy for president. And as per Maddow, the Republicans did the same thing during the mid-terms. This so called "southern strategy" also depends on low voter turnout for "minorities" which aside from the fact that there is already low turnout for these groups, they can marginalize them even more by making voting sites difficult to access, requiring an ID or driver's license to vote, making ballots confusing, and even not making alternative language ballots available. IDK, could be something along the lines of what Kanye said about Bush: Ron Paul doesn't care about black people (or other minorities).

[graymouser]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

So yeah, I know that will go down like a lead balloon on here but I see where he's coming from on it: and while he is something of a reactionary to simplify it to 'he opposes the civil rights act so he's racist' misses the point; it has nothing to do with whether he's racist or not, it comes down to whether the law should prevent racism, and I think it's bonkers to say it should.
These laws have nothing whatsoever to do with whether an individual has racist feelings. It is about whether people have access to services regardless of the color of their skin. If you are selling toasters, it doesn't matter whether you hate people as long as you are selling them toasters regardless of their ethnicity. Therefore the argument that "you can't legislate out racism" is entirely disingenuous. You may not be able to make a law against racism, but you can prevent people from discriminating in the public sphere.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

So yeah, I know that will go down like a lead balloon on here but I see where he's coming from on it: and while he is something of a reactionary to simplify it to 'he opposes the civil rights act so he's racist' misses the point; it has nothing to do with whether he's racist or not, it comes down to whether the law should prevent racism, and I think it's bonkers to say it should.
Okay just imagine this for a second. You're driving through the Texas Panhandle and you've been driving for hours and you want a place to stop and rest. So you stop at a little bed and breakfast only to be turned down because you're black. Okay you drive 10 miles down the road and see a little family owned hotel and you get turned down again because of the color of your skin. So you say fuck it and just pull over on the side of the road to sleep in your car. Then the cops, of course being racist pricks, come by and notice your car on the side of the road and arrest you or at least give you a ticket because you're not supposed to just camp on the side of the road.

Wouldn't that just be crazy? And it's totally plausible, if you've ever driven through that part of Texas it's full of small towns with small hotels along the road. It's not about making what you think illegal as if you could make a thought illegal, the law makes it illegal to not provide a service to somebody based on racist discrimination.

When I was a child my grandma and great aunt took my cousins and I on a trip to the Grand Canyon and other tourist places and somewhere in Arizona we stopped at a restaurant to eat dinner. You had to pay a very small "membership" fee to get in. When they noticed that one of my cousins was Hispanic they told us she couldn't come in and eat, that they would refuse her "membership" obviously because she was Hispanic. We didn't eat there, we made sandwiches in our mobile home, and looking back on it I'm pretty sure the setup they had would be considered illegal. But do you think it should be legal to do that?

Do you think there should be hate crime legislation?

[Franz Fanonipants]

restrict durhamleft, gulag ron paul.

/thread

[MattShizzle]

Yep, thinking that sort of thing is OK is reactionary even if you yourself aren't a racist scum.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yep, thinking that sort of thing is OK is reactionary even if you yourself aren't a racist scum.

idk, i think that thinking that sort of thing is ok pretty much is racist scum qualifications.

the State can and has worked to dismantle structural and personal racism, obviously not every communist state has been perfectly free of racial hierarchies but "you can't legislate racist feelings" basically is bullshit.

[MattShizzle]

meh, I still think it's possible to be like "I'm not a racist and don't like racism but think people who own businesses should be allowed to be racist" is still a coherent, even though wrong, position.

[MattShizzle]

Well, the reactionary piece of garbage now speaks against aid to flood victims:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php

makes me want to vomit.

[MattShizzle]

This guy is a lunatic:



"Do you think everyone should just be responsible for themselves and if a flood washes your house away no FEMA?" the viewer asked via email. "Sink or swim?"
"I think that's the way a free society works and that's what the Constitution mandates," Paul replied.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ron Paul is beyond reactionary, but he put on this nice old man persona lately.

In his earlier days he was a bitter old racist man that was vehemently reactionary.

And what leftists think Ron Paul is remotely worthy of support?

[durhamleft]

Restrict.

Ron Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is a logical extension of his other political and economic views. If you advocate policies which systematically relegate black people, or any other racial or ethnic group, to the status of second class citizens, you're a racist whether or not you hold specific a priori racist views.

Are you taking the piss?

It's not rocket science; I'm not supporting racism, and have no time for it whatsoever, however I do think people should be allowed to be racist, end of. You dont get rid of racism by banning it, you get rid of it by getting rid of the socio-economic factors that cause it.

Just look at the US for god's sake- they bring in laws to make segregation illegal, and all that happens is rather than having state sanctioned racism you instead have black only schools as all the white families move out the area; and you have the additional resentment of white families saying it's the 'state telling us what to think'.

So grow up with your restrictions; just because I view things different to you doesn't mean you should go weeping to a mod to restrict me. If disagree with what I say then argue it out with me.

[durhamleft]

Okay just imagine this for a second. You're driving through the Texas Panhandle and you've been driving for hours and you want a place to stop and rest. So you stop at a little bed and breakfast only to be turned down because you're black. Okay you drive 10 miles down the road and see a little family owned hotel and you get turned down again because of the color of your skin. So you say fuck it and just pull over on the side of the road to sleep in your car. Then the cops, of course being racist pricks, come by and notice your car on the side of the road and arrest you or at least give you a ticket because you're not supposed to just camp on the side of the road.

Wouldn't that just be crazy? And it's totally plausible, if you've ever driven through that part of Texas it's full of small towns with small hotels along the road. It's not about making what you think illegal as if you could make a thought illegal, the law makes it illegal to not provide a service to somebody based on racist discrimination.

When I was a child my grandma and great aunt took my cousins and I on a trip to the Grand Canyon and other tourist places and somewhere in Arizona we stopped at a restaurant to eat dinner. You had to pay a very small "membership" fee to get in. When they noticed that one of my cousins was Hispanic they told us she couldn't come in and eat, that they would refuse her "membership" obviously because she was Hispanic. We didn't eat there, we made sandwiches in our mobile home, and looking back on it I'm pretty sure the setup they had would be considered illegal. But do you think it should be legal to do that?

Do you think there should be hate crime legislation?

No- I don't think there should be hate crime legislation, I think if someone attacks me because I'm fat, or because I have ginger hair or whatever I don't think that should legally be seen as 'less serious' than if someone attacks me because I'm black.

And I agree- that to a certain extent allowing people to do what they want leads to some nasty consequences, but what are the other options? Shut down hotels like they are in the UK who won't allow to men to share beds? These people are reactionary because of their social upbringing, not because they're somehow 'evil'. education is the way to change that.

You'll have to forgive me for my position as I know it's 'unconventional' amongst the left; but I am very much a libertarian left-winger, and my premise would be that people should be allowed to say what they want, and certainly should be allowed to be racist.

I live in an area right, where if you go in the pub people will talk about 'poles taking our jobs' and huge amounts of other racist gobshite, now I agree it's absolutely shocking, but people who think making it illegal is a good idea are morons as it only pushes racism underground and builds up this resentment- that actually gains support for parties like the BNP.

The key to defeating racism is to bring about equality, and then people will choose not to be racist, or say racist things. Simply saying "you can't burn a qu'ran" etc is simply counter productive- people become martyrs out of it; 'did you hear about the man who was arrested for burning their stupid book, you cant say anything about those bloody muslims, theyre taking over' etc etc etc is what you hear after.

So look, i totally oppose racism, in every shape or form but i think those who
seem to think you defeat it with laws to prevent it fundamentally fail to understand the nature of racism.

[durhamleft]

I disagree that it makes you a racist but it does make you OK with racism (small but true distinction.) However, the post this was a reaction to does demonstrate that poster not only is fine with capitalism (ie no problem with 1 person owning a hotel) but thinks they should be allowed to discriminate so I agree that restriction is a good idea.

No, it DOES NOT MEAN I AM OK WITH RACISM.

I AM NOT OK WITH PEOPLE INJECTED HEROIN- but I'd let them do it.

I AM NOT OK WITH PEOPLE LOOKING UP BESTIALITY PICTURES TO JACK OFF TO- but I'd let them do it.

I AM NOT OK WITH PEOPLE OWNING FIREARMS- but I'd let people own them.

I AM NOT OK WITH RELIGION- but I'd give complete freedom to anyone who wants to practice their religion; or oppose the practice of religion.

I AM NOT OK WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T WASH- but I'd let them smell as much as they want.

AND I AM NOT- NOT FREAKING OK WITH RACISM- but I would allow people to be racist, say racist things, think racist thoughts etc.

Just because I would allow something it doesn't mean I like it. I would allow neo-nazis to have nazi fests where they were doing all their white power shit, I FUCKING HATE NEONAZIS, but equally I respect their right to think what they want and am confident I can win the battle of ideas without needing to 'ban' everything I don't like....!!!!!!

[Wanted Man]

LOL, durhamleft thinks that banning gay people from your hotel is the same thing as "saying what you want". :lol:

EDIT: also, weren't you the guy who constantly posted about "top-secret" meetings to discuss how to "smash the EDL", which you wanted to organise by PM? And now you believe in their "right to free speech"? Well in fairness, it is a bit safer for one's health.

[graymouser]

And I agree- that to a certain extent allowing people to do what they want leads to some nasty consequences, but what are the other options? Shut down hotels like they are in the UK who won't allow to men to share beds? These people are reactionary because of their social upbringing, not because they're somehow 'evil'. education is the way to change that.

You'll have to forgive me for my position as I know it's 'unconventional' amongst the left; but I am very much a libertarian left-winger, and my premise would be that people should be allowed to say what they want, and certainly should be allowed to be racist.
You are still not drawing the correct line. We aren't talking about banning the right of an individual to hold racist opinions; we are talking about banning their ability to act out those opinions by discriminating against people of color, or LGBTQ people, or whichever group we are talking about. Civil rights legislation is not there to stop people from having racist thoughts, but to prevent that racism from infringing on other people's rights to be fully participating members of society.

Also, fwiw, the idea that people "should be allowed to be racist" may be true in the strictly legal sense. But it isn't true in the political sense. Racists should be named and shamed publicly and it should be clear that we don't tolerate an iota of racism. I find such a laissez-faire attitude troubling, because I think it indicates an attitude of not taking racism seriously enough. And I do think you are going too far by saying this without qualifying it with a "legally" and making the case against anti-racism in action.

[ZeroNowhere]

People still care about Ron Paul?

ZeroNowhere.

PS. Also, I find it amusing to see a leftist arguing unashamedly for the economic freedoms and rights of hotel owners.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Just because I would allow something it doesn't mean I like it. I would allow neo-nazis to have nazi fests where they were doing all their white power shit, I FUCKING HATE NEONAZIS, but equally I respect their right to think what they want and am confident I can win the battle of ideas without needing to 'ban' everything I don't like....!!!!!!

Liberal worship of principles over the elimination of oppression and oppressive structures is not a part of any Leftist system of thought (except maybe left communism...ok, and anarchism :lol:).

You should probably either figure out why this is so, or just go over to the other side (http://www.dnc.org).

Which is to say, nazis and racists don't need their ideas respected. And "winning the battle of ideas" is pure idealist garbage.

[Pretty Flaco]

I wouldn't say he's a racist, but I would say he's an idiot and moronically idealistic if he thinks property rights are the epitome of freedom and everything will be peachy keen if there aren't protections for at least some level of equality.

[Reznov]

I think you miss the point of Ron Paul. While I totally disagree with his economic view points- I have a degree of sympathy with some of his other views, and while I am vehemently opposed to racism, I don't think you can 'make' people not be racist, and thus I have little time for quite a bit of the anti-racism legislation. If someone doesn't want me in their hotel because of my ethnicity; or for that matter my sexuality, then fuck it, that should be their choice.

So yeah, I know that will go down like a lead balloon on here but I see where he's coming from on it: and while he is something of a reactionary to simplify it to 'he opposes the civil rights act so he's racist' misses the point; it has nothing to do with whether he's racist or not, it comes down to whether the law should prevent racism, and I think it's bonkers to say it should.

I second this.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol restrict reznov too

[Reznov]

I have to agree this alone doesn't show him to be racist (though I wouldn't be surprised if he is racist.) However, it does show he thinks just because someone owns a business that they should be allowed to treat both customers and potential employess differently on the basis of race (and other differences.) This is a reactionary way of thinking.

People who own businesses are always going to judge people on the way they look or act. Its apart of having an "Image".

[Reznov]

lol restrict reznov too

Ban the trolls who contribute nothing to the thread please.

[SolidarityScot]

Yeah, no surprise there to be honest.

[Reznov]

You are still not drawing the correct line. We aren't talking about banning the right of an individual to hold racist opinions; we are talking about banning their ability to act out those opinions by discriminating against people of color, or LGBTQ people, or whichever group we are talking about. Civil rights legislation is not there to stop people from having racist thoughts, but to prevent that racism from infringing on other people's rights to be fully participating members of society.

Also, fwiw, the idea that people "should be allowed to be racist" may be true in the strictly legal sense. But it isn't true in the political sense. Racists should be named and shamed publicly and it should be clear that we don't tolerate an iota of racism. I find such a laissez-faire attitude troubling, because I think it indicates an attitude of not taking racism seriously enough. And I do think you are going too far by saying this without qualifying it with a "legally" and making the case against anti-racism in action.

Some questions for you,

1) Who are you to try to restrict someones view? I am fighting to fight off oppressors, people like the Nazis also restrcited peoples free speech because they thought it was wrong in their own view to. And I believe that a message should always be heard regardless of whatever it may be. I realize this is idealistic and utopian, but this is what I am trying to aim for.

2) "Racists should be named and shamed publicly and it should be clear that we don't tolerate an iota of racism" what the fuck is it, the next goddam salem witch trials here? Who qualifies as a racist? How do we determine two people just not getting along on a personal basis and not because of racism? Who are we to force someone who the motel to shelter someone whom the person may not want to? (As in the motel example)

Personally, I think these kind of legislation is unnesscary. I believe when our society achieves a state of Communism the main reason behind racism, economic reasons will slowly fade away as the culture changes with it.

[Tenka]

"I'm not a racist, but I respect the rights of property owners to keep black people out of their hotels." -Does not look good.

You are still not drawing the correct line. We aren't talking about banning the right of an individual to hold racist opinions; we are talking about banning their ability to act out those opinions by discriminating against people of color, or LGBTQ people, or whichever group we are talking about. Civil rights legislation is not there to stop people from having racist thoughts, but to prevent that racism from infringing on other people's rights to be fully participating members of society.
Bears repeating.

[Wanted Man]

I believe when our society achieves a state of Communism the main reason behind racism, economic reasons will slowly fade away as the culture changes with it.

And until then, black or gay people will just have to wait outside bars and hotels until the owners feel ready to accept them. Forcing them to do so would be to violate their freedom of speech. Communists mainly concern themselves with the free speech rights of WASP businessmen.

Are you people really that fucking dumb?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

"I'm not a racist, but I respect the rights of property owners to keep black people out of their hotels." -Does not look good.

Bears repeating.

What is this about looking good? Do you honestly think he has secret rascist tendancies, or that he's secretly a rascist who has made a few hundred posts on a leftist forum arguing for communism?

I think perhaps the more reasonable idea is that people can be mistaken without being racist themselves, even if you think they're ideas would contribute to racism :rolleyes:

We get that you guys really don't like racism, there isn't any need prove your anti fascist hard men/women credentials on an internet forum.

[Terminator X]

And what leftists think Ron Paul is remotely worthy of support?

Evidently, several RevLefters in this thread. ^^^^^^

[graymouser]

1) Who are you to try to restrict someones view? I am fighting to fight off oppressors, people like the Nazis also restrcited peoples free speech because they thought it was wrong in their own view to. And I believe that a message should always be heard regardless of whatever it may be. I realize this is idealistic and utopian, but this is what I am trying to aim for.
I didn't say anything about restricting free speech. The Civil Rights Act was not about freedom of speech but about the question of whether someone has the right to discriminate. As a society we said no - quite correctly so. It is false and disingenuous to equate this with freedom of speech.


2) "Racists should be named and shamed publicly and it should be clear that we don't tolerate an iota of racism" what the fuck is it, the next goddam salem witch trials here? Who qualifies as a racist? How do we determine two people just not getting along on a personal basis and not because of racism? Who are we to force someone who owns the motel to shelter someone whom the owner may not want to? (As in the hotel example)
We are talking now about three different things.

1. Legal limitation of free speech. There is no question here of limiting speech - that's not what civil rights legislation does, and it's false to claim otherwise.

2. Laws against discrimination. For instance, in the hotel example: a hotel owner should not have the right to refuse service to people of color on the basis of their skin color. This is a question of total exclusion from the public sphere for everyone who is not white. Revolutionaries should be against this, and damn the "rights" of racists to discriminate. In these cases, the rights of minorities to access public services take precedence against the whims of reactionaries.

3. Political opposition to racism. We know who racists are: people who consider others inferior on the basis of their skin color and/or ethnic origin. While I don't think that we should legislate against their free speech, at the same time we need to publicly oppose them. For instance, taking the hotel example: any hotel that refuses to serve people on the basis of race, should be boycotted by white anti-racists as well.

It's really poor politics to consider these three things the same. I think your "free speech" pretext is entirely bankrupt, and would reverse one of the more significant political gains of the second half of the 20th century for nothing more than pseudo-rights of racists.

[Tenka]

What is this about looking good? Do you honestly think he has secret rascist tendancies, or that he's secretly a rascist who has made a few hundred posts on a leftist forum arguing for communism?

I think perhaps the more reasonable idea is that people can be mistaken without being racist themselves, even if you think they're ideas would contribute to racism :rolleyes:


No one on the left should find themselves defending the "rights" of property owners, racist or not; but it's doubly ridiculous to defend the rights of property owners to keep people out of hotels on the basis of racial discrimination. Durhamleft may just be confused, but it's a pretty grievous confusion if so, and he really needs to learn the danger of such a position.

[Psy]

Just because I would allow something it doesn't mean I like it. I would allow neo-nazis to have nazi fests where they were doing all their white power shit, I FUCKING HATE NEONAZIS, but equally I respect their right to think what they want and am confident I can win the battle of ideas without needing to 'ban' everything I don't like....!!!!!!
Me if we have the numbers I'd say crush the fascists pricks and beat the stupid out of them, if we have a revolution brutally crush them and use the revolutionary army to enforce the banning of neo-nazis.

It is not a case of winning the battle of ideas, it as a problem of conflicting class interests, we can't reason with the bourgeoisie are doing what is logical for their class thus the proletariat has to be willing to use force to defend its interests against the capitalists.

[Lucretia]

The initial post sounds like Rachel Maddow scare-mongering to try to get people to vote for democrats in the run-up to some general election. NEWS FLASH NEWS FLASH: LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE IN THE "SANCTITY" OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND DO NOT SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT MEASURE THAT TAKES AWAY THE "RIGHTS" OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SERVE WHOM THEY WISH IN A PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT.

In case you did not have any idea about what libertarianism is. Duh.

[Sam_b]

Swear to God sometimes I don't think the left can get worse and then I see shit like this


crush them and use the revolutionary army

That's Catchphrase!

[Kenco Smooth]

I vehemently oppose worker oppression but I do think capitalists have a right to do so. Their property, their rules.

:rolleyes:

[Psy]

Swear to God sometimes I don't think the left can get worse and then I see shit like this



That's Catchphrase!


Unless you think local militias will have access to armor and air support (or think we shouldn't send in the tanks and helicopters as a response to fascist demonstrations) then of course revolutionary armies would be the ones responding to fascists. A revolutionary state should make fascists shit their paints when they see the armed revolutionary response to them.

[Sam_b]

Yawn

[Robocommie]

Ahh yes, some idiot libertarian explained this to me once. He said that in a "free society" racial inequality would be eliminated in the following way. Firstly if a racial group is poorer, then vendors should be able to sell products to them at a lower price as race-based price discrimination would maximise profits for vendors. This would eventually increase the welfare of the poorer race. Same argument applies apparently for hiring workers.

That's utter nonsense, it completely ignores the fundamental realities of how capitalism works. If vendors were to sell goods at lower prices, it'd undercut every other vendor. And how the hell would that bring poor folks out of the cycle of poverty, instead of simply keeping them dependent on these vendors?

[Wanted Man]

Man I'm so glad Psy is back.

[black magick hustla]

its always interesting how american posters always post threads about somewhat marginal libertarian kooks, right wingers, etc. why do you guys even care?

[Franz Fanonipants]

its always interesting how american posters always post threads about somewhat marginal libertarian kooks, right wingers, etc. why do you guys even care?

maldoror - NOT AN AMERICAN POSTER

that said, its true dtl

[RadioRaheem84]

its always interesting how american posters always post threads about somewhat marginal libertarian kooks, right wingers, etc. why do you guys even care?

Because they gain quite a following in the States, due to excessive media coverage. Ron Paul is being touted as a nice, anti-Imperialist, old doctor with some radical ideas, but he is really a reactionary racist.

[Psy]

Yawn

Don't underestimate fascists in a revolution as they are serious threat. Also don't think a revolutionary army is just a catchphrase, they are the major armed bodies of revolutions while the proletariat are at war with capitalists, without revolutionary armies the proletariat will take much higher casualties during revolutions due to the lack of armed bodies to defend the proletariat from capitalist armed bodies.

[Sam_b]

You don't even realise you're doing it, do you Psy?

[Psy]

You don't even realise you're doing it, do you Psy?

What. I said that fascists should be dealt with by revolutionary armies if they exist and you said that is a catchphrase, so was the POUM a just catchphrase? I am not suggesting to deal with fascists with just something called a revolutionary army but a armed body that is functionally a revolutionary army.

[durhamleft]

Going back to a point raised earlier, which is distinguishing between a right to the freedom of free speech and freedom to ban homosexuals, blacks etc from hotels. I do see the difference between them, however I think their are two unifying themes.

1) Banning people from either being racist, or banning people not allowing blacks to stay in their hotel is in both cases counter-productive.
The reason is as follows. Some people are racist. They are racist because they believe that immigrants have caused them to lose jobs, failed to integrate and have generally made the country a worse place.
This racism is misplaced and wrong; however does legislation to ban it without addressing the socio-economic factors that cause the racism make the problem better? No, it makes it worse.

Parties like the BNP thrive on the fact they can say 'political correctness gone mad' and the elite politicians are restricted our right to not allow someone to stay in their hotel

2) I think there's a moral reason why you shouldn't legislate against racism and that is this. I dislike National Socialists greatly, and if I ran a B&B, I think I should have a right to say to anyone who turns up with a swastika, look pal you can't stay here I don't want you in my house.

Some people hate black people, and I think they should have a right to turn away black people from their house. I know it isn't ideal; but I think that even though the consequences are negative, the fundamental principle should be that someone should have that choice.



Don't get me wrong, I have no time for racists, but the only solution to racism is dealing with the factors that cause it, simply saying it's illegal provides a serious advantage to the far-right, and that's perhaps why the national socialist right in the UK is vastly greater than the US were there are much fewer laws re. 'racially aggravated this or that'.

Sorry comrades but we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I am as much a libertarian as I am a socialist and don't buy into this 'we'll give you the freedom we think you should have' crap that many of the left spout.

[Psy]

Going back to a point raised earlier, which is distinguishing between a right to the freedom of free speech and freedom to ban homosexuals, blacks etc from hotels. I do see the difference between them, however I think their are two unifying themes.

1) Banning people from either being racist, or banning people not allowing blacks to stay in their hotel is in both cases counter-productive.
The reason is as follows. Some people are racist. They are racist because they believe that immigrants have caused them to lose jobs, failed to integrate and have generally made the country a worse place.
This racism is misplaced and wrong; however does legislation to ban it without addressing the socio-economic factors that cause the racism make the problem better? No, it makes it worse.

Parties like the BNP thrive on the fact they can say 'political correctness gone mad' and the elite politicians are restricted our right to not allow someone to stay in their hotel

Which is why the vanguard is suppose to help workers become aware of their class interest



2) I think there's a moral reason why you shouldn't legislate against racism and that is this. I dislike National Socialists greatly, and if I ran a B&B, I think I should have a right to say to anyone who turns up with a swastika, look pal you can't stay here I don't want you in my house.

Fascists are not a race or gender.



Some people hate black people, and I think they should have a right to turn away black people from their house. I know it isn't ideal; but I think that even though the consequences are negative, the fundamental principle should be that someone should have that choice.

A home isn't a means of production



Don't get me wrong, I have no time for racists, but the only solution to racism is dealing with the factors that cause it, simply saying it's illegal provides a serious advantage to the far-right, and that's perhaps why the national socialist right in the UK is vastly greater than the US were there are much fewer laws re. 'racially aggravated this or that'.

The fascists are weaker in the USA because they had the brilliant idea of attacking the bourgeoisie that resulted in the FBI coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

I agree dealing that factors that cause racism has to be dealt with but we can't support access to property being limited on the bases of race or gender.

[Wanted Man]

Note that durham's position may seem so dumb that it must have just fallen from the sky, but it is actually readily explainable. He is after all a member of a political tendency that opposes calling for opening the borders to immigrants because it basically scares the poor old white folk. So why not extend that logic: if the government prevents white folk from banning black people from their propertah, they might consider it "political correctness gone mad" and vote BNP...

After all, that's basically what he's saying. That and the hilarious comparison between excluding black people and excluding Nazis as if that's one and the same.

So anyway, what durham and co. systematically ignore is the question of what the hypothetical black or gay person who gets excluded should do. It's either: "He can sleep somewhere else, it's a free market and a free country!" which would be a blatant defence of private property, or: "Sorry, can't be bothered with the darkies. We need to give racist white business owners the idea that socialism is good for them."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Going back to a point raised earlier, which is distinguishing between a right to the freedom of free speech and freedom to ban homosexuals, blacks etc from hotels. I do see the difference between them, however I think their are two unifying themes.

1) Banning people from either being racist, or banning people not allowing blacks to stay in their hotel is in both cases counter-productive.
The reason is as follows. Some people are racist. They are racist because they believe that immigrants have caused them to lose jobs, failed to integrate and have generally made the country a worse place.
This racism is misplaced and wrong; however does legislation to ban it without addressing the socio-economic factors that cause the racism make the problem better? No, it makes it worse. I really doubt this is true, the situation for black people has not worsened since the legislation passed decades ago, it's actually gotten better. Does it address capitalism, no it doesn't, but I'm happy I don't live in a place where there is a "colored" drinking fountain or "colored" movie theater.


Parties like the BNP thrive on the fact they can say 'political correctness gone mad' and the elite politicians are restricted our right to not allow someone to stay in their hotel So, I'd rather have a bunch of reactionary white people having to fight to put back into place what white privilege they lost instead of having it in place already.


2) I think there's a moral reason why you shouldn't legislate against racism and that is this. I dislike National Socialists greatly, and if I ran a B&B, I think I should have a right to say to anyone who turns up with a swastika, look pal you can't stay here I don't want you in my house. You see there that's the problem with your position, you're unashamedly arguing in favor of property rights. Look what you do in the bold "if I ran a B&B" or in other words "if I was a capitalist"...Don't you think that's a problematic viewpoint for a communist to have? You're arguing in favor of bourgeois freedom.


Some people hate black people, and I think they should have a right to turn away black people from their house. I know it isn't ideal; but I think that even though the consequences are negative, the fundamental principle should be that someone should have that choice. Don't let whoever you want in your house, that's not the problem, it's the not letting black people into your business that is the problem.




Don't get me wrong, I have no time for racists, but the only solution to racism is dealing with the factors that cause it, simply saying it's illegal Like I said before I don't think anybody said having racist thoughts should be illegal. I'll say it again because you seem to not understand. Being a racist =/= being illegal. Refusing people from your restaurant because they're Hispanic = illegal.


Sorry comrades but we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I am as much a libertarian as I am a socialist and don't buy into this 'we'll give you the freedom we think you should have' crap that many of the left spout.Good to know you're as much as of a supporter of private property rights as you are of socialism. Because freedom in capitalist society is the freedom for the capitalists, not for the rest of us.

[durhamleft]

I really doubt this is true, the situation for black people has not worsened since the legislation passed decades ago, it's actually gotten better. Does it address capitalism, no it doesn't, but I'm happy I don't live in a place where there is a "colored" drinking fountain or "colored" movie theater.
So, I'd rather have a bunch of reactionary white people having to fight to put back into place what white privilege they lost instead of having it in place already.

You see there that's the problem with your position, you're unashamedly arguing in favor of property rights. Look what you do in the bold "if I ran a B&B" or in other words "if I was a capitalist"...Don't you think that's a problematic viewpoint for a communist to have? You're arguing in favor of bourgeois freedom.

Don't let whoever you want in your house, that's not the problem, it's the not letting black people into your business that is the problem.



Like I said before I don't think anybody said having racist thoughts should be illegal. I'll say it again because you seem to not understand. Being a racist =/= being illegal. Refusing people from your restaurant because they're Hispanic = illegal.

Good to know you're as much as of a supporter of private property rights as you are of socialism. Because freedom in capitalist society is the freedom for the capitalists, not for the rest of us.

I can't be arsed to go through everything everyone has to say, so I've chosen this as it seems to be representative of most people's objections.

1) Yes, the situation for black people has got better; however, I think that has very little to do with anti-racist legislation, but rather the increased awareness of the fact that immigrants aren't a cause of problem. I think this is evidenced by the fact areas with the greatest education, and more skilled workforce tend to be the least racist, whereas those who are living in poverty and generally isolated from society tends to be the more racist. If it was the laws that had decreased racism, then it would be a more across the board decrease in racism.

2) It's all well and good saying what would happen in an idea, libertarian socialist world however in practice most people are employed by/ run a firm or business of some kind. Most people who run B&Bs etc are not bougeoise, they are simply working class people who are trying to make money.

3) Indeed- but in the example of a b&b the house and the business aren't mutually exclusive.

4) I understand the legal situation. I am saying that it shouldn't be illegal to be a racist business owner who won't serve black people. In the 1960's many pubs wouldn't serve men with long hair, they didn't stop that ridiculous policy because it was made illegal, they stopped that policy because people realised that it wasn't something that was morally unsound.

5) To a certain extent I support private property rights; I support my right to live in my house and to tell you to piss off if you try and come in. If you're saying do I support the right of people to amass land and wealth etc. then the answer is clearly not, however unfortunately pal you have to work with what you've got and within capitalism I see the anti-racism legislation as something that has done very, very little to deal with racism and at the same time it has taken away people's right to discriminate, which boo hoo, is a right I think people are entitled too.

NB. It's worth considering that when you all talk about 'the capitalists'- the majority of 'capitalists' are working class people who are trying to make money- whether by a small b&b or restaurant. In reality the true capitalist class who owns firms like tesco etc wouldnt impose such policy as they know it would be so unpopular.

[Psy]

I can't be arsed to go through everything everyone has to say, so I've chosen this as it seems to be representative of most people's objections.

1) Yes, the situation for black people has got better; however, I think that has very little to do with anti-racist legislation, but rather the increased awareness of the fact that immigrants aren't a cause of problem. I think this is evidenced by the fact areas with the greatest education, and more skilled workforce tend to be the least racist, whereas those who are living in poverty and generally isolated from society tends to be the more racist. If it was the laws that had decreased racism, then it would be a more across the board decrease in racism.

I think it is more due to the bourgeoisie state getting burned by the Watts riot and the huge spike in militancy of black people, it was also seen as a propaganda move as the racism contradicted the image the US state was projecting to the world.





2) It's all well and good saying what would happen in an idea, libertarian socialist world however in practice most people are employed by/ run a firm or business of some kind. Most people who run B&Bs etc are not bougeoise, they are simply working class people who are trying to make money.

They are petite-bourgeoisie with dreams of becoming the bourgeoisie.





4) I understand the legal situation. I am saying that it shouldn't be illegal to be a racist business owner who won't serve black people. In the 1960's many pubs wouldn't serve men with long hair, they didn't stop that ridiculous policy because it was made illegal, they stopped that policy because people realised that it wasn't something that was morally unsound.

And what if the workers are against racist policy? What if workers go on a wildcat strike against this policy do Marxist side with capitalist over the workers?



5) To a certain extent I support private property rights; I support my right to live in my house and to tell you to piss off if you try and come in. If you're saying do I support the right of people to amass land and wealth etc. then the answer is clearly not, however unfortunately pal you have to work with what you've got and within capitalism I see the anti-racism legislation as something that has done very, very little to deal with racism and at the same time it has taken away people's right to discriminate, which boo hoo, is a right I think people are entitled too.

As a Marxist I don't support the right to amass land as property is thrift.



NB. It's worth considering that when you all talk about 'the capitalists'- the majority of 'capitalists' are working class people who are trying to make money- whether by a small b&b or restaurant. In reality the true capitalist class who owns firms like tesco etc wouldnt impose such policy as they know it would be so unpopular.
By capitalists we are not just talking about the petite-bourgeoisie but the real capitalists that don't work a second in their life as they live of unpaid labor of the proletariat.

[Sir Comradical]

That's utter nonsense, it completely ignores the fundamental realities of how capitalism works. If vendors were to sell goods at lower prices, it'd undercut every other vendor. And how the hell would that bring poor folks out of the cycle of poverty, instead of simply keeping them dependent on these vendors?

Price discrimination for example based on age already happens, so for example students pay concession prices because vendors find out that this lower price for students maximises the money they make off students. His example just applies this principle to race. My disagreement comes out of rejecting these pathetic theoretical models that see poverty as a given condition when really it's a condition produced by capitalism.

[Robocommie]

Price discrimination for example based on age already happens, so for example students pay concession prices because vendors find out that this lower price for students maximises the money they make off students. His example just applies this principle to race. My disagreement comes out of rejecting these pathetic theoretical models that see poverty as a given condition when really it's a condition produced by capitalism.

Hell, nobody's taken it upon themselves yet to sell goods at concession prices to the poor; with the obvious exception of dollar stores. But it's kindof funny, because just earlier I was thinking of this conversation while shopping at Dollar Tree, and I realized that this libertarian assertion is that shopping at places LIKE Dollar Tree will make you rich.

[Sir Comradical]

Hell, nobody's taken it upon themselves yet to sell goods at concession prices to the poor; with the obvious exception of dollar stores. But it's kindof funny, because just earlier I was thinking of this conversation while shopping at Dollar Tree, and I realized that this libertarian assertion is that shopping at places LIKE Dollar Tree will make you rich.

Haha. They don't speak in terms of 'rich', they stick strictly to 'utility maximisation'.

[graymouser]

]1) Banning people from either being racist, or banning people not allowing blacks to stay in their hotel is in both cases counter-productive.
The reason is as follows. Some people are racist. They are racist because they believe that immigrants have caused them to lose jobs, failed to integrate and have generally made the country a worse place.
This racism is misplaced and wrong; however does legislation to ban it without addressing the socio-economic factors that cause the racism make the problem better? No, it makes it worse.

Parties like the BNP thrive on the fact they can say 'political correctness gone mad' and the elite politicians are restricted our right to not allow someone to stay in their hotel
Look, I don't want to insult you, but this argument is just trash. You are saying essentially that racist reaction is a sufficient reason to block anti-discrimination legislation. That's exactly the wrong attitude to take. When workers organize, reactionaries complain about it too. We cannot allow the reaction of racists and fascists to determine whether we take a position. That should be a fundamental for revolutionaries - reactionaries will oppose pretty much anything progressive and organize around it. The reality is this is an excuse to throw people of color under the bus and abandon their interests - which is an attitude which will never win a revolution in a modern country.


2) I think there's a moral reason why you shouldn't legislate against racism and that is this. I dislike National Socialists greatly, and if I ran a B&B, I think I should have a right to say to anyone who turns up with a swastika, look pal you can't stay here I don't want you in my house.
This is just such a marginal example and really a petty-bourgeois attitude to take. Again, I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I really cannot respect the attitude you are taking. Also: laws against discrimination based on skin color do not prevent you from discriminating against fascists, so this is a bit of a red herring.


Some people hate black people, and I think they should have a right to turn away black people from their house. I know it isn't ideal; but I think that even though the consequences are negative, the fundamental principle should be that someone should have that choice.
This is really just a terrible attitude, and it's based on awful logic. You really need to rethink this if you're to be a revolutionary, as no movement that takes the attitude you are is going to win the support of masses of people of color. Here in the US it's been a very difficult lesson that the left has learned, that the struggles of minorities are going to be key in any revolution we have. If you can honestly take this stance on a "libertarian" ground or whatever, then you will never win their support and never be able to win the revolution.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

1) Yes, the situation for black people has got better; however, I think that has very little to do with anti-racist legislation, but rather the increased awareness of the fact that immigrants aren't a cause of problem.You know we're talking about the United States right? In the U.S. the racism against blacks has nothing to do with immigration.


I think this is evidenced by the fact areas with the greatest education, and more skilled workforce tend to be the least racist, whereas those who are living in poverty and generally isolated from society tends to be the more racist. If it was the laws that had decreased racism, then it would be a more across the board decrease in racism.
I don't think you are getting the point here, the legislation isn't to decrease racism, it's to make sure all people have access to goods and services. It's not to make the owner of a restaurant anti-racist, it's passed so a minority could go to the restaurant and get a bite to eat.


2) It's all well and good saying what would happen in an idea, libertarian socialist world however in practice most people are employed by/ run a firm or business of some kind.Most people are employees or employers, your point?
Most people who run B&Bs etc are not bougeoise, they are simply working class people who are trying to make money. First of all who else is categorized in the "etc" as you only say B&B. And B&B's are still small businesses.


4) I understand the legal situation. I am saying that it shouldn't be illegal to be a racist business owner who won't serve black people. In the 1960's many pubs wouldn't serve men with long hair, they didn't stop that ridiculous policy because it was made illegal, they stopped that policy because people realised that it wasn't something that was morally unsound.You mean it wasn't something that was morally sound, but I'm not understanding why you're supporting the rights of the bosses. Like you want them expropriated and all that crap but you respect their right to discriminate based on the color of someone's skin. Let's just say it wasn't going away and racism was institutionalized but racism I guess isn't that serious. Like what Israel does to Palestinians, not a big deal. Or like Apartheid, not that serious, change would eventually happen because people realized it was dumb and no laws would need to be put into place ;)


5) To a certain extent I support private property rights; I support my right to live in my house and to tell you to piss off if you try and come in. If you're saying do I support the right of people to amass land and wealth etc. then the answer is clearly not, however unfortunately pal you have to work with what you've got and within capitalism I see the anti-racism legislation as something that has done very, very little to deal with racism and at the same time it has taken away people's right to discriminate, which boo hoo, is a right I think people are entitled too.Work within capitalism but then don't support laws that would get rid of institutionalized racism that existed in our capitalist society? But it's good to know that you support the right of business owners to racially discriminate boo hoo for the oppressed I guess.


NB. It's worth considering that when you all talk about 'the capitalists'- the majority of 'capitalists' are working class people who are trying to make money- whether by a small b&b or restaurant. In reality the true capitalist class who owns firms like tesco etc wouldnt impose such policy as they know it would be so unpopular.
In reality capitalists are capitalists, not working class. What the fuck planet are you from?

[synthesis]

essentially he's defending property 'rights' and using racism as a backdrop for doing so. that's the basic gist of it.

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been said, but I'd argue that you have it backwards. I think he's using "property rights" to justify a racist position so as to pander to the crypto-nationalist demographic. Look up his early-90's newsletters and you'll see what I mean.

[Reznov]

I didn't say anything about restricting free speech. The Civil Rights Act was not about freedom of speech but about the question of whether someone has the right to discriminate. As a society we said no - quite correctly so. It is false and disingenuous to equate this with freedom of speech.


We are talking now about three different things.

1. Legal limitation of free speech. There is no question here of limiting speech - that's not what civil rights legislation does, and it's false to claim otherwise.

2. Laws against discrimination. For instance, in the hotel example: a hotel owner should not have the right to refuse service to people of color on the basis of their skin color. This is a question of total exclusion from the public sphere for everyone who is not white. Revolutionaries should be against this, and damn the "rights" of racists to discriminate. In these cases, the rights of minorities to access public services take precedence against the whims of reactionaries.

3. Political opposition to racism. We know who racists are: people who consider others inferior on the basis of their skin color and/or ethnic origin. While I don't think that we should legislate against their free speech, at the same time we need to publicly oppose them. For instance, taking the hotel example: any hotel that refuses to serve people on the basis of race, should be boycotted by white anti-racists as well.

It's really poor politics to consider these three things the same. I think your "free speech" pretext is entirely bankrupt, and would reverse one of the more significant political gains of the second half of the 20th century for nothing more than pseudo-rights of racists.

I agree with your three points.

Now let's say the owner refuses to allow a white person to stay at the motel because he just doesn't feel comfortable allowing the person to be at his motel. Is this discrimination as well?

Or would it be taken less serious since we couldn't label it as a racist discrimination?

[Triple A]

Ron Paul runs for president.
Elections in 2012.
Can you see the pattern? Those who said the mayans were wrong will repent, cuz the world will end.

[graymouser]

I agree with your three points.

Now let's say the owner refuses to allow a white person to stay at the motel because he just doesn't feel comfortable allowing the person to be at his motel. Is this discrimination as well?

Or would it be taken less serious since we couldn't label it as a racist discrimination?
Arguing by hypothetical examples like this is always problematic, because it rarely addresses actual problems.

Given the actual history of the United States, when a person of color is denied access to a service or good in the public sphere, if there are no other extenuating circumstances, then we would have to assume it's racial discrimination. By that I mean, if a Black man came up to the motel and was denied service because he couldn't pay - that's not discrimination. But if he was denied service because he "looks dangerous," that is still discrimination, because in the real situation in the United States, the racist stereotype is that Black males are criminals.

There are cases where a white person could be considered discriminated against for their skin color. For instance, if the motel owner mistakenly assumed that the "white" customer was Latino, that would be ethnic discrimination. Or if he was an anti-Semite and thought that the person "looked Jewish," and discriminated on that basis, it would be racist. It's even possible that he thinks the white man is gay and refuses on homophobic grounds, which is also discrimination. But racism against white people in general is not a serious problem, and cannot be addressed as such.

This is a problem with how political discourse is framed in popular discussion. You can bring up hypothetical examples until the cows come home, but what has to be dealt with is reality. Nowhere on this planet are white people in a situation a tenth as serious as that faced by Black and Latino people in the United States. So I just cannot take this hypothetical as being a serious challenge to the idea of anti-discrimination laws.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Unless you think local militias will have access to armor and air support (or think we shouldn't send in the tanks and helicopters as a response to fascist demonstrations) then of course revolutionary armies would be the ones responding to fascists. A revolutionary state should make fascists shit their paints when they see the armed revolutionary response to them.

Comrade, I appreciate your strategic planning on this matter, but do you not think that the revolutionary industry, seized workshops and forges and motivated by commissariat zeal, could be used to generate regiments of proletarian Armour and air support? To attack with just militia would be a grave mistake in the revolutionary war.




But if he was denied service because he "looks dangerous," that is still discrimination, because in the real situation in the United States, the racist stereotype is that Black males are criminals.


Are you claiming that thinking a black person looks dangerous is discrimination?

I'm guessing not, but that you are saying it is possibly motivated by rascist sterotyping?

I don't know, it just seems we're all influnced by steortypes, and to a lesser degree, these sterotypes have some truth to them. I don't know how to search myself so I can work out what degree of my assumption that some black guy with some ghetto outfit is actually based on reality, and to what degree it is based on a load of inaccurate sterotypes given to me by society.

[graymouser]

Are you claiming that thinking a black person looks dangerous is discrimination?

I'm guessing not, but that you are saying it is possibly motivated by rascist sterotyping?

I don't know, it just seems we're all influnced by steortypes, and to a lesser degree, these sterotypes have some truth to them. I don't know how to search myself so I can work out what degree of my assumption that some black guy with some ghetto outfit is actually based on reality, and to what degree it is based on a load of inaccurate sterotypes given to me by society.
I'm attempting to clarify how racist stereotypes that exist in society feed into what is and what is not discrimination. The United States is saturated with media images that draw the equivalence Black male = criminal, to the point where even well-meaning white people if asked to think of a criminal suspect assume he is Black, even though whites commit more crimes.

The idea "stereotypes have some truth to them" may not be entirely off base - many Black men do go to jail for committing crimes - but often as not, they teach us nothing. More Black men are in jail or under the control of the so-called criminal justice system for no crime other than marijuana possession than for anything else; in fact, the number of Black men in jail for pot is staggering, a larger prison population than any other country. The entire "criminal justice" machine has been dedicated to the incarceration of Black men on drug-related charges for most of the last three decades. While technically criminals, these men are facing a machine of total racial isolation. I would encourage you to read Michelle Alexander's excellent book The New Jim Crow if you really want to understand what is going on with the stereotype of Black criminals.

I'm putting so much emphasis on this because I firmly believe as a Marxist that it's very important to base our politics on real situations on the ground, rather than on sort of abstract statements. The situation of Black people is very real where hypothetical discrimination against whites is simply not.

[Psy]

Comrade, I appreciate your strategic planning on this matter, but do you not think that the revolutionary industry, seized workshops and forges and motivated by commissariat zeal, could be used to generate regiments of proletarian Armour and air support? To attack with just militia would be a grave mistake in the revolutionary war.

Yes I do, I just don't think local militias will have access to these. I think instead of sending in local militias to deal with fascist demonstrations in areas the revolutions controls, to use the revolutionary army to quickly snuff the fascist movement out unless they are too busy elsewhere.



I don't know, it just seems we're all influnced by steortypes, and to a lesser degree, these sterotypes have some truth to them. I don't know how to search myself so I can work out what degree of my assumption that some black guy with some ghetto outfit is actually based on reality, and to what degree it is based on a load of inaccurate sterotypes given to me by society.
The key point here is people making life difficult for others because of the stereotypes.

[Chambered Word]

1) Banning people from either being racist, or banning people not allowing blacks to stay in their hotel is in both cases counter-productive.
The reason is as follows. Some people are racist. They are racist because they believe that immigrants have caused them to lose jobs, failed to integrate and have generally made the country a worse place.
This racism is misplaced and wrong; however does legislation to ban it without addressing the socio-economic factors that cause the racism make the problem better? No, it makes it worse.

Racism doesn't just spring from the ranks of the oppressed workers like that. It has always been a product of the state's monopoly on ideas, made necessary by the need to create divisions in the working class and keep the rate of profit up (lower pay, slavery and what-have-you), as the state itself is committed to running business. The material need for artificial divisions manifests as racist laws and this necessarily legitimizes the ideas which are necessarily pushed by the other arms of the state and the media. The socio-economic factor causing racism is the wage system itself and I think the idea that workers are naturally racist is incorrect and chauvinistic. Fighting racism necessarily means destroying its structural basis.


Parties like the BNP thrive on the fact they can say 'political correctness gone mad' and the elite politicians are restricted our right to not allow someone to stay in their hotel

Bullshit. Racist organizations like the Klan used to thrive on the fact that they were once considered a mainstream organization with legitimate goals, that racism was still enshrined in law and the establishment could still successfully encourage racist ideas. It's harder to get away with lynching black people nowadays. Proto-fascist organizations can make all the arguments they like in favour of their politics, but the fact is that they are not considered part of the mainstream because of the past struggles against racism. This does tend to make their arguments less compelling by its own virtue, no matter how oppressed they may claim to be.


2) I think there's a moral reason why you shouldn't legislate against racism and that is this. I dislike National Socialists greatly, and if I ran a B&B, I think I should have a right to say to anyone who turns up with a swastika, look pal you can't stay here I don't want you in my house.

Some people hate black people, and I think they should have a right to turn away black people from their house. I know it isn't ideal; but I think that even though the consequences are negative, the fundamental principle should be that someone should have that choice.

Petit-bourgeois moralism. Nobody should have the choice to discriminate, because it's completely against the material interests of the working class. I don't really care for bourgeois freedom, because it tends to be more like freedom in ancient Greece than freedom in the literal sense of the word, to roughly paraphrase Lenin.


Don't get me wrong, I have no time for racists, but the only solution to racism is dealing with the factors that cause it, simply saying it's illegal provides a serious advantage to the far-right, and that's perhaps why the national socialist right in the UK is vastly greater than the US were there are much fewer laws re. 'racially aggravated this or that'.

I don't think any of this is factually correct, and I don't think that pushing for legislation against racism gives the advantage to proto-fascist groups or racists, in fact it's a blow to the very source of racism and a moral victory for oppressed people.


Sorry comrades but we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I am as much a libertarian as I am a socialist and don't buy into this 'we'll give you the freedom we think you should have' crap that many of the left spout.

Why support someone's right to oppress another? That's not freedom, that's getting fucked.



1) Yes, the situation for black people has got better; however, I think that has very little to do with anti-racist legislation, but rather the increased awareness of the fact that immigrants aren't a cause of problem. I think this is evidenced by the fact areas with the greatest education, and more skilled workforce tend to be the least racist, whereas those who are living in poverty and generally isolated from society tends to be the more racist. If it was the laws that had decreased racism, then it would be a more across the board decrease in racism.

Yes, the lumpenproletariat to tend to be the most backward section of the oppressed, but counterposing them to a 'skilled workforce' is a false dichotomy. I challenge you to find evidence for these claims as well because blue-collar workers in unions often tend to be the most progressive section of workers, at least in Australia, which obviously does not correlate with the amount of time they spent in a state institution as insidiously oppressive as education (using education as a means to end racism is immaterial and often spouted by educated members of the middle class who see themselves as better than the lowly workers because of their own higher and more isolated class position).


2) It's all well and good saying what would happen in an idea, libertarian socialist world however in practice most people are employed by/ run a firm or business of some kind. Most people who run B&Bs etc are not bougeoise, they are simply working class people who are trying to make money.

No, they're business owners, and they have interests in racism like the rest of the bourgeoisie.


4) I understand the legal situation. I am saying that it shouldn't be illegal to be a racist business owner who won't serve black people. In the 1960's many pubs wouldn't serve men with long hair, they didn't stop that ridiculous policy because it was made illegal, they stopped that policy because people realised that it wasn't something that was morally unsound.

They suddenly woke up one day and thought 'what was I thinking, refusing to serve long haired men, that's utterly ridiculous!'? :rolleyes: It's still irrelevant, long haired men are not an oppressed minority.


5) To a certain extent I support private property rights; I support my right to live in my house and to tell you to piss off if you try and come in. If you're saying do I support the right of people to amass land and wealth etc. then the answer is clearly not, however unfortunately pal you have to work with what you've got and within capitalism I see the anti-racism legislation as something that has done very, very little to deal with racism and at the same time it has taken away people's right to discriminate, which boo hoo, is a right I think people are entitled too.

Personal property and private property are different, and if you support private property rights at all you are not a Marxist.


NB. It's worth considering that when you all talk about 'the capitalists'- the majority of 'capitalists' are working class people who are trying to make money- whether by a small b&b or restaurant. In reality the true capitalist class who owns firms like tesco etc wouldnt impose such policy as they know it would be so unpopular.

This is simply not correct, small-time capitalists may exploit their own labour to a degree but they are not part of the working class and are often just as viciously anti-working class than the big bourgeoisie. They own their own means of production and use it to profit, while often employing workers, so they are not part of the working class at all.

[durhamleft]

I'm sorry but we're going to just disagree on this Revleft.

You speak to people on the street- in working class areas, about what they think about the fact they call someone a 'N****R' and they get a much more serious sentence than if some calls them an 'UGLY C**T' and they'll say 'oh our government favours the blacks doesn't it'.

You ask them what they think about Black music awards etc. and they'll say 'oh its typical the blacks can discriminate but us whites can't'

You talk about people getting imprisoned for burning the koran and they say 'we can't criticise these muslims can we'

Don't get me wrong: I disagree with these attitudes however the problem is this. We are bringing in legislation to prevent discrimination but are simply failing to tackle the socio-economic causes of it. All that does it pushes the racism and hatred under the surface and allows it to boil and fester; anyone who thinks the legislation works misses the point; in the short term it may mean a black person gets a hotel room, but in the long term it pushes people who may be 'casual racists' or 'pub racists' towards voting for a Nationalist Socialist party.

Racism is bad, however the only times we have historically seen a Nationalist Socialist government get in power has been on the back of people feeling that there was some sort of 'conspiracy' against them. An increasing number of people are feeling that; and that is partly the fault of capitalism however it is partly the fault of Western politicians in a more general sense who have failed to address many of the problems of the clash of cultures that has developed under globalisation.

[Psy]

I'm sorry but we're going to just disagree on this Revleft.

You speak to people on the street- in working class areas, about what they think about the fact they call someone a 'N****R' and they get a much more serious sentence than if some calls them an 'UGLY C**T' and they'll say 'oh our government favours the blacks doesn't it'.

You ask them what they think about Black music awards etc. and they'll say 'oh its typical the blacks can discriminate but us whites can't'

You talk about people getting imprisoned for burning the koran and they say 'we can't criticise these muslims can we'

Don't get me wrong: I disagree with these attitudes however the problem is this. We are bringing in legislation to prevent discrimination but are simply failing to tackle the socio-economic causes of it. All that does it pushes the racism and hatred under the surface and allows it to boil and fester; anyone who thinks the legislation works misses the point; in the short term it may mean a black person gets a hotel room, but in the long term it pushes people who may be 'casual racists' or 'pub racists' towards voting for a Nationalist Socialist party.

Racism is bad, however the only times we have historically seen a Nationalist Socialist government get in power has been on the back of people feeling that there was some sort of 'conspiracy' against them. An increasing number of people are feeling that; and that is partly the fault of capitalism however it is partly the fault of Western politicians in a more general sense who have failed to address many of the problems of the clash of cultures that has developed under globalisation.

The Fascists never won a election, the bourgeoisie empowered them in response to the rising power of the left, the communists had much more popular support after WWII communists which is why the US sunk so much money into rebuilding Europe and Japan.

Basically stop trying to compromise for the reactionaries, they will be crushed in the revolution and no longer a concern.

[Sam_b]

You speak to people on the street- in working class areas, about what they think about the fact they call someone a 'N****R' and they get a much more serious sentence than if some calls them an 'UGLY C**T' and they'll say 'oh our government favours the blacks doesn't it'.

You ask them what they think about Black music awards etc. and they'll say 'oh its typical the blacks can discriminate but us whites can't'

You talk about people getting imprisoned for burning the koran and they say 'we can't criticise these muslims can we'

You seem to have a very low opinion of the workng class. I don't encounter this that often in my community at all. Perhaps that's because you just made these examples up to try and prove your point - I use the word 'point' loosely here.


in the short term it may mean a black person gets a hotel room, but in the long term it pushes people who may be 'casual racists' or 'pub racists' towards voting for a Nationalist Socialist party.


You are now arguing for oppression to stop a greater rise of oppression - what the fuck?

I imagine many CWI members on here will need to try and distance themselves from another member of their organisation arguing this sort of trash.

[graymouser]

I'm sorry but we're going to just disagree on this Revleft.

You speak to people on the street- in working class areas, about what they think about the fact they call someone a 'N****R' and they get a much more serious sentence than if some calls them an 'UGLY C**T' and they'll say 'oh our government favours the blacks doesn't it'.

You ask them what they think about Black music awards etc. and they'll say 'oh its typical the blacks can discriminate but us whites can't'

You talk about people getting imprisoned for burning the koran and they say 'we can't criticise these muslims can we'

Don't get me wrong: I disagree with these attitudes however the problem is this. We are bringing in legislation to prevent discrimination but are simply failing to tackle the socio-economic causes of it. All that does it pushes the racism and hatred under the surface and allows it to boil and fester; anyone who thinks the legislation works misses the point; in the short term it may mean a black person gets a hotel room, but in the long term it pushes people who may be 'casual racists' or 'pub racists' towards voting for a Nationalist Socialist party.

Racism is bad, however the only times we have historically seen a Nationalist Socialist government get in power has been on the back of people feeling that there was some sort of 'conspiracy' against them. An increasing number of people are feeling that; and that is partly the fault of capitalism however it is partly the fault of Western politicians in a more general sense who have failed to address many of the problems of the clash of cultures that has developed under globalisation.
This is really, really awful: you are claiming that anti-racism causes fascism. That is not true and has never been. You claim to be against racism, but you cower in fear of racists reacting to any law that requires that people of color are treated with dignity and equality in society. You would allow them to be marginalized because any action taken might embolden racists - well, to be honest, if that's the kind of politics you put forward, I want nothing at all to do with it.

We are never going to win a revolution if we cannot take a forthright stance against discrimination and are not willing to take measures no matter what racists think. Anti-discrimination laws are wrong even if racists hate them and fascists use them to agitate - it's still the right thing to do. We still have to insist that everyone has the basic right to access to all parts of society regardless of skin color even if that makes the worst elements of society marginally stronger.

But I also think it's downright slander that you heap on working-class people when you start talking about their attitudes towards people of color. Some workers have racist attitudes, but sociologically speaking the large majority of supporters of racism and fascism have been petty-bourgeois terrified of being proletarianized. Your attitude is a total capitulation to racism, when in reality it's something that has to be opposed in the strongest and clearest terms by the best fighters in the working class. Think about it: if socialists can't even stand up and clearly say discrimination is wrong, then even a socialist revolution wouldn't solve racism. It's a cowardly line, and one born out of white privilege, frankly.

[Robocommie]

Basically durhamleft, your argument boils down to you saying its much easier to just give in to racists when they object to anti-discrimination laws, rather than try and argue for why people from different cultures and backgrounds deserve to have their rights protected? Well, what's to stop you from applying that same twisted, cowardly logic to everything you want to fight for?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yes I do, I just don't think local militias will have access to these. I think instead of sending in local militias to deal with fascist demonstrations in areas the revolutions controls, to use the revolutionary army to quickly snuff the fascist movement out unless they are too busy elsewhere.


The key point here is people making life difficult for others because of the stereotypes.

It might be best to defer to your thinking on this matter Comrade since you seem more experienced in matters such as this. However, perhaps you overlook the important, and ability, of the revolutionary armed proletarian forces to mechanize itself?

If we recall the lessons of the fascist putzch in Germany, one can see they were able to seize, due to local police and military support, limited amounts of Armour and mechanical vehicles. It may be inadvisable to rashly advocate sending militas in to eliminate the fascists, might they be defeated. I strongly feel, that any delay assembling the necessary mailed fist of proletarian armor, would be worthwhile in the guaranteeing of success. One need not invoke revolutionary industry, but simply requisition and re purpose previously created, but easily available vehicles. I can see the potential, for example, since I view these vechicles as the most easily avaiable for the proletariat, for a revolutionary red milkfloat regiment to be created, so as to aid the transport of the red guards to the "front", red forkliftist brigades can be deployed to assist the heavy loading and crushing of fascist resistance and so on. These are just examples, but I think this perspective is a valueable one for future working class militants.

[Psy]

It might be best to defer to your thinking on this matter Comrade since you seem more experienced in matters such as this. However, perhaps you overlook the important, and ability, of the revolutionary armed proletarian forces to mechanize itself?

Of course but how much armor could be deployed?



If we recall the lessons of the fascist putzch in Germany, one can see they were able to seize, due to local police and military support, limited amounts of Armour and mechanical vehicles. It may be inadvisable to rashly advocate sending militas in to eliminate the fascists, might they be defeated. I strongly feel, that any delay assembling the necessary mailed fist of proletarian armor, would be worthwhile in the guaranteeing of success.

If there the revolutionary army has nothing better to do of course, but their primary role is defending the revolution from bourgeoisie armies. Also success won't be guaranteed with armor.



One need not invoke revolutionary industry, but simply requisition and re purpose previously created, but easily available vehicles. I can see the potential, for example, since I view these vechicles as the most easily avaiable for the proletariat, for a revolutionary red milkfloat regiment to be created, so as to aid the transport of the red guards to the "front", red forkliftist brigades can be deployed to assist the heavy loading and crushing of fascist resistance and so on. These are just examples, but I think this perspective is a valueable one for future working class militants.
True but my point was that the revolutionary army may have more pressing manners.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Of course but how much armor could be deployed?


If there the revolutionary army has nothing better to do of course, but their primary role is defending the revolution from bourgeoisie armies. Also success won't be guaranteed with armor.


True but my point was that the revolutionary army may have more pressing manners.

Possibly comrade, but it is worthwhile to make such plans. I think it would be fairly easy for the armed workers to seize various means of transport, and mechanized objects that may be useful in the crushing of resistance.

Personally, and I know many disagree, but I believe it is vital for revolutionaries to plan such matters in minute detail, combined, we can have a host of ready made plans, the vanguard party equipped to intervene in ordinary workers struggle to deal with every eventuality.

I propose, as a general case, the proletriat of any large to medium sized city form at least three seperate forkliftist bridages, comprising of 50 to 100 forklifts each. I think, from my anlysis of police barriers, blockages, and general fascist tactics, such a forklift force would be able to significantly assist the red masses against them, flipping cars, hoisting banners of proletariant progaganda, lifting things, forklifting, one can see this would be useful. It gives me immense pleasure to imagine the bursting of miitary lines with chaingun equiped forklifts and ice cream trucks, drapped in red banners and so on. I'd like your opinion on this deployemnt as you seem pretty well versed in such matters? THanks.

[Psy]

I propose, as a general case, the proletriat of any large to medium sized city form at least three seperate forkliftist bridages, comprising of 50 to 100 forklifts each. I think, from my anlysis of police barriers, blockages, and general fascist tactics, such a forklift force would be able to significantly assist the red masses against them, flipping cars, hoisting banners of proletariant progaganda, lifting things, forklifting, one can see this would be useful. It gives me immense pleasure to imagine the bursting of miitary lines with chaingun equiped forklifts and ice cream trucks, drapped in red banners and so on. I'd like your opinion on this deployemnt as you seem pretty well versed in such matters? THanks.

I don't see the point of arming forklifts with chainguns as you won't want to send forklifts into firefight you'd be better with armored bulldozers if it comes to that.