Affirmative Action. [Archive]

Nuvem

11th November 2011, 22:25

I think the best way to get rid of racism is to get rid of the concept of race. What we need is the emancipation of the working class.

This is racist. This is a manifestation of liberalism that we're faced with here; the liberal escapist route in regards to the racial question. The fact of the matter is that the various races which exist as oppressed minority communities in the USA and in a multitude of other nations possess a cultural and communitarian identity and the white majority in America (or any of the other nations with mixed racial composition) has no right to strip them of it- this includes Communists. While it is unquestionably our contention that people of all shades of skin and forms of body are rightfully social equals, we cannot infringe upon the right to self-determination of the various ethnic groups. This means that those of African, Latin, Asian, Native American, Semitic, Arabic, or any other self-identified ethnic group must be given the right and option to secession and self-determination on racial grounds.

Let us suppose in a hypothetical that the African American community rejects a proletarian revolution in America, that they as a community in general do not fight against the revolution, but refuse the struggle for socialism and demand the right to determine their own governmental and economic system- in such a situation, they certainly must be given the right to secede and any concessions necessary in the form of land, capital, or any other tools needed to facilitate such a thing should certainly be given without question. The same would apply to any other racial group desirous of independence. To deny this right to self-determination of a self-identifying racial community on the part of the white majority and to instead drag them along a path they do not wish to follow is racist, especially in any nation which formerly enslaved or wrought genocide upon the group concerned. Consider for example the plight of the Native Americans of the North, South and Central Americas. All have had their populations devastated by genocide at the hands of Europeans, an ongoing effort on the part of the bourgeoisie. In the reservations they molder in poverty, stripped of their traditional way of life and means, and slowly dwindle away- for those who escape that life and join society in the main, their cultural identity is stripped away as they come to conform to mass society, its norms and its requirements; their genetic traits are also likely to be diluted as they will most likely bear children with someone of a different national and ethnic composition until after a few generations no semblance of the features characteristic of Natives remain. The latter is very much the situation of many Central and South American natives, who typically don't have reservations granted to them; in North America both situations are prevalent.

Now, given this ongoing crisis of genocide on the Native American people, would it not be terribly wrong of us and indeed racist to push socialism upon these people? To maintain the status quo and therefore to carry on the genocidal campaign against them would be utterly unacceptable. Therefore, they must be given the right to secede in whole and every accommodation necessary should be granted to them. This is only the appropriate response to a terribly oppressed people who commonly hold that "Marx is as alien [to their people]" as is any bourgeois theoretician, government or economic form. The same applies to the African American community whose ancestors were literally dragged here in chains and whose people the white majority of the nation has no right to practice dictatorship over.

There also exist of course very real medical and physical differences between the various races which cannot be denied; they exist materially and must be acknowledged. For example, we cannot ignore the danger of people of African descent suffering from sickle cell anemia because "race is a social construct" and "we don't see color, only class". There are various diseases which typically affect only certain groups and many forms of cancer to which various ethnic groups are more or less susceptible because of the real biological differences between us. And I have news for you, my dear fellow Communists:

THAT'S OKAY.

It is completely fine for us to have real, material, observable differences in features or needs so long as we do not discriminate against one another as a result of them. IT'S OKAY TO BE DIFFERENT. We don't have to lie to ourselves and shit all over material reality and convince ourselves that "race is all in our heads". This is a liberal deviation and leads, in fact, to racist policy-making since no regard is given to oppressed minorities if we truly are "colorblind". Our goal as socialists and as Communists in the first world (who are undeniably of a predominantly white background) should not be to browbeat ethnic minorities, saying "Oh no, you're not ___x___, ____x____ is just a social construct. Let me tell you about [insert ideology here] and why I as a person of the white majority know that's what's best for YOU". Rather, our goal should be to show fraternity and understanding for all races, to continue to educate and unite with people on a personal basis, and allow them to come to their own decisions, being confident that most people will choose to come along with us down the road to freedom from exploitation- but respecting the decision of those who do not on a cultural basis and instead continuing to foster comradely relations with them and never pulling back the olive branch. This naturally also includes giving equal representation in government to all racial minorities.

So yes, I do fully support affirmative action in our policies here in the US. It is one of the small and only reparations given by the bourgeois US government to the people whom it spent centuries extermination and enslaving, and to deny them that gain is to condemn a significant number of them to a life of joblessness and poverty and to deny just as many a good education at a post-secondary level. It is, in a word, racist.

Boothe

12th November 2011, 08:56

"This is racist."

How so? Racism is defined as-

"A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

There is nothing in the prior post that suggests that either African, Caucasian, or any other "race" holds any type of supremacy over any other. No one is denying the biological or physical differences amongst us. In fact, I feel we should embrace our differences as that which unifies us as human beings. I can confidently say that most people(myself included) would support the growth of multiculturalism within our world. However this cannot be brought about through affirmative action. Affirmative action within a capitalist society only works to strengthen the idea that a person cannot accomplish anything without the help of bourgeois government intervention, which in the long term is counter-productive to the revolutionary movement.

"So yes, I do fully support affirmative action in our policies here in the US. It is one of the small and only reparations given by the bourgeois US government to the people whom it spent centuries exterminating and enslaving..."

Slavery has been outlawed since the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 and the extermination and relocation of the Native Americans had ended by 1900. Which means that nobody living today has truly seen the effects of these horrible practices firsthand. I will not deny that these events happened, and I firmly believe that everyone should learn from the mistakes and cruelty of American imperialism at the time. It should be noted that while Caucasians definitely had a role in the slave trade, by no means did they hold a monopoly on it. It is a well documented historical fact that Africans were routinely captured and sold into slavery by their fellow African! It doesn't excuse what was done by white people, but this is often conveniently ignored by proponents of AA. I think the time has more than come for the world to move forward together as the human race, while simultaneously embracing that which makes us unique.

NewLeft

13th November 2011, 00:24

I voted yes because visible minorities are still systemically discriminated. Affirmative action is the only crumb that we can get out of this system..
And getting rid of the concept of race? That's just ridiculous.. Whatever happened to understanding, not forgetting?

Belleraphone

13th November 2011, 01:30

While racism no doubt oppressed minorities in the USA, I don't see why an upper class black person should be given priority over a lower class white person.

#FF0000

13th November 2011, 01:44

And getting rid of the concept of race? That's just ridiculous.. Whatever happened to understanding, not forgetting?

Well I'm not one of those people who thinks that racism will just stop when people "ignore race" but yeah why not get rid of the concept of race?

Ocean Seal

13th November 2011, 01:59

Why does revleft still have this debate. Affirmative action is not an "entitlement". It is not a compensation for being historically oppressed. It is a very imperfect reform designed to offset the systematic racism that occurs throughout the world. Blacks, hispanics and women are at a disadvantage socially and economically. To end these programs is to attempt to maintain differences between the races.

Affirmative action isn't racist towards whites, but instead acts to reduce the privilege that whites have to start with. Again, imperfect reforms provided by the bourgeoisie. Good under capitalism, most likely to be unnecessary after a short bit of employing socialism.

#FF0000

13th November 2011, 02:03

white people also benefit from affirmative action, btw.

#FF0000

13th November 2011, 02:06

There also exist of course very real medical and physical differences between the various races which cannot be denied; they exist materially and must be acknowledged. For example, we cannot ignore the danger of people of African descent suffering from sickle cell anemia because "race is a social construct" and "we don't see color, only class". There are various diseases which typically affect only certain groups and many forms of cancer to which various ethnic groups are more or less susceptible because of the real biological differences between us. And I have news for you, my dear fellow Communists:

Not acknowledging racism is a mistake -- however, race is only a social construct. Race is not a biological reality. People from different backgrounds have different genetics, obviously, but the differences are not so extreme nor exclusive enough to one group to actually literally divide humanity into different races.

Race does not exist, biologically.

Race is a social construct.

But that does not mean that race and racism can't affect people.

RedRevolution1938

13th November 2011, 02:07

Stupid and we are wasting our time with these issues. If we have affirmative action, than a poor white person could be denied access to college. If we don't, than a black person could be discriminated against in favor of a white person.

Newsflash here people NEITHER IS GOOD

Either way the working class and the poor are getting fucked over by the rich. I'd like to see workers both black and white rise up and demand education for themselves rather than these reformist attitudes of compensation.

Is affirmative action fair? No, because nothing under this system will be fair to our working comrades.

#FF0000

13th November 2011, 02:12

Stupid and we are wasting our time with these issues. If we have affirmative action, than a poor white person could be denied access to college.

Wrong. Affirmative action helps poor white people too.

RedRevolution1938

13th November 2011, 02:13

Wrong. Affirmative action helps poor white people too.

How? Proof please, with evidence.

#FF0000

13th November 2011, 02:26

How? Proof please, with evidence.

Uh that's what it does guy -- it's for ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and people from low-income backgrounds. If you want proof try looking into it even the slightest bit.

Colleges take all this into account when looking at an application.

BlackFlag

12th February 2014, 16:05

helot

12th February 2014, 17:27

Affirmative action favors one race over another, essentially. While I'm all for spreading the wealth around equally, I'm against favoring one race over another in the capitalist society we currently live in just so we can say 'Oh look, we hire everyone'.

It can only be seen as favouring one race over another if you completely ignore reality. Affirmative action, as has already been mentioned in this thread, isn't specifically to do with race but also poverty, gender and disability.

Even if it were solely about race it would still be wrong to say it's about favouring one race over another. The reason is simple, PoC face systemic oppression due to race. Affirmative action is a band-aid, it's an attempt to soften the effects of this systemic oppression.

Geiseric

12th February 2014, 18:25

Hah revleft has actually been filled with racists this whole time. Of course I support the intention of hiring people who are on less of a privelaged level than upper middle class white males.

BlackFlag

13th February 2014, 15:37

A Revolutionary Tool

13th February 2014, 16:02

You often hear that AA is unfair for white people but looking at our history I could give two shits if it was. AA is supposed to work so more people who have historically been disadvantaged can have more opportunities. Black people were enslaved, beaten, tortured, lynched, forced into ghettos, treated as second class citizens, etc, etc. The least our society could do is try and give them more opportunities to get out of that situation the racist system had put the community in. It's not enough of course but it's something. I'm reminded of what Dave Chappelle said on his show in response to an angry white guy who said on the job site white people talk amongst themselves that a black person who works with them is said to only be there because of AA. To which he responded(paraphrasing here) that's better than being broke as fuck without the job.

Remus Bleys

13th February 2014, 16:39

Opposing affirmative action doesn't make me a racist. I'd agree with an Affirmative Action that doesn't let the employer hire a white man over a black man if the black man is more or even equally qualified.

But I don't support hiring teachers and black men for chief of police when there is a more qualified white man for the job. Just as I wouldn't hire a white man over a more qualified black man.

If you honestly believe that I'm a racist for supporting affirmative action, you're a bigot.

The fact that you want the most qualified member for chief of police is proof enough of your reactionary opinion, but this is expected from someone who believes that someone is bigoted if they acknowledge the reality of race. Doesn't matter if it's a social construct, wage labour is also just a social construct. The fact that you think that "qualifications" are something that exist in a vacuum and are not skewed to the disadvantage to one race (not to mention that these so called qualifications are mostly irrelevancies) is honestly laughable.
nice job opening a dead thread to show everyone you're an anti communist

Ember Catching

13th February 2014, 17:28

BlackFlag

13th February 2014, 17:48

The fact that you want the most qualified member for chief of police is proof enough of your reactionary opinion, but this is expected from someone who believes that someone is bigoted if they acknowledge the reality of race.
I'm not anti-communist. I wouldn't describe myself as a communist, I'm a socialist.
The use of bigot was a pointer that I was being identified as a 'racist' or 'bigot' because I opposed affirmative action. Do I really think you're a bigot? No, I think you're open for discussion.

You often hear that AA is unfair for white people but looking at our history I could give two shits if it was. AA is supposed to work so more people who have historically been disadvantaged can have more opportunities. Black people were enslaved, beaten, tortured, lynched, forced into ghettos, treated as second class citizens, etc, etc. The least our society could do is try and give them more opportunities to get out of that situation the racist system had put the community in. It's not enough of course but it's something. I'm reminded of what Dave Chappelle said on his show in response to an angry white guy who said on the job site white people talk amongst themselves that a black person who works with them is said to only be there because of AA. To which he responded(paraphrasing here) that's better than being broke as fuck without the job.
So, you're saying it's okay to favour one person for a job over another, just because they are a certain race? I mean, I'm all for a socialist society, but if someone puts themself through college and scores higher on examinations and tests for a job, why shouldn't he get it over the other?

I agree we should do our utmost best to help anyone who is lower down in the 'class system', but we shouldn't base it on race. I agree, slavery was disgusting and really shows us how bad human beings can be. But none of these men are slaves, or ever were.

Remus Bleys

13th February 2014, 17:57

I'm not anti-communist. I wouldn't describe myself as a communist, I'm a socialist.
The use of bigot was a pointer that I was being identified as a 'racist' or 'bigot' becauseI opposed affirmative action. Do I really think you're a bigot? No, I think you're open for discussion.
I don't really care what you think, you are a reactionary. To think that one can close once eyes to the sociologically reality of race is not only naivity but it is reactionary. I don't care that you are a "socialist" (oddly enough, you aren't a communist but you aren't anti-communist - yet you identify as socialist - very telling I think). I don't care if you think I am a bigot or not, I don't care why you used the word bigot. You may not "hate black people" but you support institutions that objectively enforce discrimination against all minorities, and which have been continuously harmful to poor people (imagine that, a "socialist," obviously in a liberal sense, that proposes measures which will hurt poor people!). You are confused and naive, and may perhaps one day you might change, but until then you are a reactionary. I will not debate the necessity of affirmative action, especially with some reactionary anon on the internet. You are either with us or against us, and on the intellectual field I see no use in engaging with reactionaries.

I mean, I'm all for a socialist society, but if someone puts themself through college and scores higher on examinations and tests for a job
lawl. what world do you live in? Because here in earth this does not happen.

Remus Bleys

13th February 2014, 18:01

I have serious issues with the theory underpinning affirmative action, namely the way it's framed as a method of countering historically extant oppression, which doesn't particularly make much sense and sounds rather like a way of tip-toeing around the reality of the continued disadvantage many sections of the population still face today, and which, taken to its logical extreme, implies a color- and gender-blind society.
I am inclined to overall agree with this, but there is a serious difference with saying that civil rights movements must radically challenge society and going beyond reforms thrown at them, but this is different then opposing affirmative action on grounds that "it advantages minorities over men and white people" and some other stupid shit (or even actively opposing affirmative action).

BlackFlag

13th February 2014, 18:43

You are either with us or against us, and on the intellectual field I see no use in engaging with reactionaries.

All I can see here is you dancing around the question and insulting me, calling me a 'reactionary' and such.

Jimmie Higgins

13th February 2014, 18:55

All I can see here is you dancing around the question and insulting me, calling me a 'reactionary' and such.
Don't take it personally, that's how they treat everyone.

However I do think you've been swayed by some fairly common right-wing arguments on this question. First, in the u.s. Affirmative action rarely if ever gave any preference to "less qualified people" yet this was one of the main arguments for dismantling these reforms in the u.s.

Since this didn't actually happen through these reforms, the actual reasoning behind this argument by the right was built on racist arguments about black labor being illegitimate and "low quality". But that is not the reason for affirmative action reforms, black people or women in the u.s. Were not inferior labor, they were kept out or kept in low paying positions.

There were even anti-discrimination laws in hiring by the late 1950s but they were toothless. Basically an employer or union would have to put in writing... "We did not accept this person for a job because of their race or gender". Affirmative action developed out of the failure of those reforms as a way to not just "passively not allow discrimination" but to take an affirmative action against employment discrimination.

BlackFlag

13th February 2014, 19:37

Don't take it personally, that's how they treat everyone.

However I do think you've been swayed by some fairly common right-wing arguments on this question. First, in the u.s. Affirmative action rarely if ever gave any preference to "less qualified people" yet this was one of the main arguments for dismantling these reforms in the u.s.

Since this didn't actually happen through these reforms, the actual reasoning behind this argument by the right was built on racist arguments about black labor being illegitimate and "low quality". But that is not the reason for affirmative action reforms, black people or women in the u.s. Were not inferior labor, they were kept out or kept in low paying positions.

There were even anti-discrimination laws in hiring by the late 1950s but they were toothless. Basically an employer or union would have to put in writing... "We did not accept this person for a job because of their race or gender". Affirmative action developed out of the failure of those reforms as a way to not just "passively not allow discrimination" but to take an affirmative action against employment discrimination.
That makes more sense, but what about government intervention that ensured companies would have to hire the best person for the job? Because it's still a risky thing to have going on.
Thanks for your post though, and who's 'they'?

RedCornFlakes

14th February 2014, 01:19

The fact that you want the most qualified member for chief of police is proof enough of your reactionary opinion,

Reactionary
A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society.
Explain how being against affirmative action is reactionary.

but this is expected from someone who believes that someone is bigoted if they acknowledge the reality of race.
"Reality of Race"
The "Race" that doesn't exist and is merely a social construct, according to 99% of the people on this site.

Doesn't matter if it's a social construct, wage labour is also just a social construct.
No, it's an economic one

The fact that you think that "qualifications" are something that exist in a vacuum and are not skewed to the disadvantage to one race
Considering race doesn't exist, you can't be genetically wired to act a certain way.

(not to mention that these so called qualifications are mostly irrelevancies) is honestly laughable.
Are all races equal? Yes. Are all people equal and the same? No. You Remus Bleys seem to have a big ego, you consider yourself smarter than other people. Some people are smarter than others, some people are faster than others, some people are taller than others. It has nothing to do with race, it's the individual. If all people were equal, then football and basketball games would be utterly boring and tame.

nice job opening a dead thread to show everyone you're an anti communist

Communism
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

In Marxist theory
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Communism is an economic system, not a social one. In Marxism, everyone will have a job, thus negating the need for affirmative action. And people would be paid according to their abilities and needs. So one's pay would be determined by their qualifications and personal requirements. Of course communism IIRC is also moneyless, so you wouldn't really get paid at all.

Jimmie Higgins

14th February 2014, 02:42

That makes more sense, but what about government intervention that ensured companies would have to hire the best person for the job? Because it's still a risky thing to have going on.
Thanks for your post though, and who's 'they'?there generally is no objectively "best person". How would that be measured or enforced? Job discrimination and so on can be empirically shown on the other hand.

At any rate, employers do presumedly hire who is "best" based on whatever criteria they want: fast, skilled, cheap, intimidateable. I'm more interested in what is best in terms of class struggle and I think workers as a whole are in a better position when they are not divided racially (so this means fighting against the devaluation of black, female, youth, or immigrant labor or limitations on them); when we as workers don't allow employers a free hand in determining our hireling, firming, and working conditions. In most cases, affirmative action is a pretty modest attempt to shift this balance and worth defending against attacks from the right.

#FF0000

14th February 2014, 03:06

But none of these men are slaves, or ever were.

But they do live in a white supremacist society in which being white grants perks. Slavery was a long, long time ago but structural and systemic racism against black people in America still persists. As such I can't see opposing affirmative action in favor of the status quo -- even though I'd say they're an awkward and half-hearted workaround to the problem.

EDIT: welp I posted from a purely american standpoint here but yeah

RedCornFlakes

14th February 2014, 15:23

Remus Bleys

14th February 2014, 16:14

Explain how being against affirmative action is reactionary.

"Reality of Race"
The "Race" that doesn't exist and is merely a social construct, according to 99% of the people on this site.

No, it's an economic one

Considering race doesn't exist, you can't be genetically wired to act a certain way.

Are all races equal? Yes. Are all people equal and the same? No. You Remus Bleys seem to have a big ego, you consider yourself smarter than other people. Some people are smarter than others, some people are faster than others, some people are taller than others. It has nothing to do with race, it's the individual. If all people were equal, then football and basketball games would be utterly boring and tame.

Communism is an economic system, not a social one. In Marxism, everyone will have a job, thus negating the need for affirmative action. And people would be paid according to their abilities and needs. So one's pay would be determined by their qualifications and personal requirements. Of course communism IIRC is also moneyless, so you wouldn't really get paid at all.
So first off I'm calling it that you are Bolshevik Sickle.
Now, let me get to the root of the matter in your argument. The reactionary who opposes affirmative action because they support rather some skewed view that we should only get the most qualified person to get the job (as jimmie Higgins pointed out affirmative action has never really given an unqualified person a job) but they are themselves avoiding the fact that race itself is real insofar as it is a social construct. Affirmative Action is a concession by the bourgeoisie so that instead of radically changing society so that the social construct that is race is no longer in existence, and we will live in a non racist society. I'm not going to act like affirmative action is a step in achieving this, but I will condemn those who want to destroy this limited concession because of some opinion that we already live in a truly post racial society. Both race and wage labour are at the same time social and economic constructs. Only through proletarian dictatorship can we truly embark on the path which will destroy race, as it both destroys the base of racism and of the propaganda of racism. You sit on your computer desktop with your false technicalities claiming that it is bigotted to acknowledge that we do not live in a color blind world. Do you not realize that the bourgeois state simply tries to keep race a socio economic reality because it benefits them? Do you not realize that many opportunities and situations are designed to only benefit a certain group of people? Marxism is not a mode of production marxism is a methodology, which of you used you would quickly realize that race does exist. The relationship between a child and a parent is a social one, does that mean it does not exist? The mere fact that the kkk still exists is enough proof that within the fabric society there still contains within it racist institutions that create and enforce the racist ideologies.
Simultaneously marxism shows us that affirmative action (by a bourgoeis state) is useless to the creation of a post racial society. This idea that with affirmative action we can undo the base of racism is fundamentally incorrect and liberal. We see that with the introduction of affirmative action racism has not been alleviated and that racism has still divided the working class. The liberal peddlers of affirmative action who insist that if only we had more individual minorities working in some upper stratum job, yet still slaving away for capital is likewise to be opposed as much as your reactionary opinion on affirmative action. The meaning of the phrase the liberation of the working class can only come from the working class war not some anti Vanguard polemic, it was the recognition that only the proletariat can unify the species being into the material human community that is communism, it was a reflection on the fact that the bourgeoisie will not free us of bourgeois society. We cannot sit and beg for reforms then call it a day, we must organize for a radical overthrow of existing society. Bolshevik Sickle, your opinion is reactionary, because like the liberals you believe that race is able to be overthrown in capitalism, you think that by closing our eyes that race goes away. Bolshevik Sickle, how can you claim that race isn't real except on a social basis: human life operates solely on a human basis. Would you be naive and daft enough to claim that the relationship you have with a friend isn't real because it's a social basis?

tachosomoza

14th February 2014, 17:34

Furthermore I would especially oppose affirmative action in difficult important jobs such as...
Public transpiration (I'm texting from a bus right now and I'm going to be like 30 minutes late to school because this person has no idea what they're doing).
Medical field (A surrenge is not a toy, and performing surgery is not a game of Operation.
Police department (Those criminals aren't going to turn in themselves).

So, you've internalized racialist modes of thinking and think that affirmative action will result in professions being swarmed with inherently incompetent people of color. Instead of supporting more affirmative action programs for people of color to receive training for those jobs, you choose instead to repeat reactionary talking points and support rolling back what few concessions have been made to alleviate and acknowledge what poor communities of color have had foisted upon them throughout their history. What does this solve?

RedCornFlakes

14th February 2014, 17:53

So, you've internalized racialist modes of thinking
No, but if someone who is unable to preform a job sufficiently they should not be able to get the job (unless it was a communist society, then everyone would have a job anyway). I wouldn't support affirmative action for white people anymore than I would support it for minorities.

and think that affirmative action will result in professions being swarmed with inherently incompetent people of color.
People of color or ethnic minorities are not "inherently incompetent" anymore than the would-be ethnic majority/white people are inherently benevolent. Affirmative action would cause incompetent people who just so happen to be minorities to get the job over someone who is more talented that just so happens to not be a minority.

Instead of supporting more affirmative action programs for people of color to receive training for those jobs, you choose instead to repeat reactionary talking points and support rolling back what few concessions have been made to alleviate and acknowledge what poor communities of color have had foisted upon them throughout their history. What does this solve?
There is plenty of relatively cheap trade schools out there, and getting a blue-collar (proletariat) job isn't difficult, even though preforming it is.
We could just say "hire everyone!" but then the wages will go down, and while everyone will have work, they're paychecks will be thin.

"Are we suppose to just let them starve and die?"
-Of course not, I support universal healthcare, homeless shelters, foster homes, and other forms of general welfare for the disadvantaged.

BlackFlag

14th February 2014, 18:12

We don't live in a white supremacist society, the idea of it alone is stupid. If we lived in a white supremacist society we wouldn't feel guilty about slavery, and it'd probably still be in practice unless there'd been a revolt.
I'm not racist, but if racist attacks happen it's HUGE news, why? Because all racists are scumbags, which is true, and so the media exposes them. But the point is - We don't live in a 'White Supremacist' society.

"White supremacy is the belief of, and/or promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites."
If you can honestly say that's our current society, and that the Bourgeois only target anyone non-white.... I pity you.

Also, Remus, mind using paragraphs?

tachosomoza

14th February 2014, 18:25

We don't live in a 'White Supremacist' society

So, who makes up the bulk of the bourgeoisie? Who are the cops that beat, torment and harass black kids? Who are the CEOS, judges, cabinet officers and corrections officers?

Are you joking?

G4b3n

14th February 2014, 18:25

It should be distributed based primarily on class, however, historically oppressed peoples need to be taken into account not as a component of the working class, but addressed in regards to the specific issues they are facing.

Bea Arthur

14th February 2014, 18:35

Who is the right-winger who developed this poll? Calling affirmative action entitlement programs? Really?? What's next? Are we going to be lectured about how 47% of the country are entitled takers? It's puzzling how any leftist could employ language like this or doubt the necessity of affirmative action to combat racism, sexism, and imperialism!!

Criminalize Heterosexuality

14th February 2014, 19:46

Opposing affirmative action doesn't make me a racist. I'd agree with an Affirmative Action that doesn't let the employer hire a white man over a black man if the black man is more or even equally qualified.

But I don't support hiring teachers and black men for chief of police when there is a more qualified white man for the job. Just as I wouldn't hire a white man over a more qualified black man.

Why should communists care about qualifications? We don't want to make capitalism more efficient or fair or "color blind", we want to strangle it. If the bourgeoisie is forced to hire someone "less qualified" as a result of the pressure of the workers' movement, why should that concern us, particularly if it provides some much-needed economic relief to specially oppressed races and nationalities?

RedCornFlakes

14th February 2014, 20:22

Why should communists care about qualifications? We don't want to make capitalism more efficient or fair or "color blind", we want to strangle it. If the bourgeoisie is forced to hire someone "less qualified" as a result of the pressure of the workers' movement, why should that concern us, particularly if it provides some much-needed economic relief to specially oppressed races and nationalities?
Okay, so qualifications don't matter. Fair enough, I will agree with you now.
What about jobs are given on a first come; first serve basis?

Devrim

14th February 2014, 20:23

Why should communists care about qualifications? We don't want to make capitalism more efficient or fair or "color blind", we want to strangle it. If the bourgeoisie is forced to hire someone "less qualified" as a result of the pressure of the workers' movement, why should that concern us, particularly if it provides some much-needed economic relief to specially oppressed races and nationalities?

Do you think that affirmative action is really the result of the 'pressure of the workers movement'?

Devrim

tachosomoza

14th February 2014, 20:29

Do you think that affirmative action is really the result of the 'pressure of the workers movement'?

Devrim

It's a response to the demands of workers of color of the mid 20th century for equal access to education and jobs.

Devrim

14th February 2014, 20:35

It's a response to the demands of workers of color of the mid 20th century for equal access to education and jobs.

Well no, the world, as much as it may surprise some people on here, does actually stretch beyond the shores of North America. There are affirmative action programmes in many countries, which this clearly does not apply to.

Even in the US though while there may have been demands for equal access it is a long way from that to saying that affirmative action is the result of 'pressure of the workers movement'. Could you show some examples, such as workers going on strike in favour of these sort of programmes, please?

Devrim

tachosomoza

14th February 2014, 20:44

Well no, the world, as much as it may surprise some people on here, does actually stretch beyond the shores of North America. There are affirmative action programmes in many countries, which this clearly does not apply to.

Even in the US though while there may have been demands for equal access it is a long way from that to saying that affirmative action is the result of 'pressure of the workers movement'. Could you show some examples, such as workers going on strike in favour of these sort of programmes, please?

Devrim

Usually, when you hear about affirmative action, they're referring to programs in the United States. Here, it was a response to the demands of the black and hispanic population for increased representation in education and employment. These programs are the product of action and responses to pressure by traditionally marginalized working class people of color. Wherever the working class gets together and advocates for its class interests, it is a working class movement. Black and hispanic workers advocated and struggled for their inclusion in jobs and educational institutions previously reserved solely for whites, and measures to be taken to remedy the misdeeds they suffered at the hands of the whites, as this was in their class interest and they applied their pressure together as a class and as oppressed ethnic groups to ensure their demands were met.

I presume the same occurred in Europe.

Devrim

14th February 2014, 21:02

Usually, when you hear about affirmative action, they're referring to programs in the United States.

Not in my experience at all, I don't think that I have ever heard about it in America. Perhaps that is because, like the vast majority of the world's population, I am not American.

Here, it was a response to the demands of the black and hispanic population for increased representation in education and employment. These programs are the product of action and responses to pressure by traditionally marginalized working class people of color. Wherever the working class gets together and advocates for its class interests, it is a working class movement. Black and hispanic workers advocated and struggled for their inclusion in jobs and educational institutions previously reserved solely for whites, and measures to be taken to remedy the misdeeds they suffered at the hands of the whites, as this was in their class interest and they applied their pressure together as a class and as oppressed ethnic groups to ensure their demands were met.

Can you give any actual examples of workers demanding affirmative action programmes?

I presume the same occurred in Europe.

Yes, the rest of the world must have done the same as North America, of course.

Devrim

tachosomoza

14th February 2014, 21:07

Not in my experience at all, I don't think that I have ever heard about it in America. Perhaps that is because, like the vast majority of the world's population, I am not American.

Can you give any actual examples of workers demanding affirmative action programmes?

Yes, the rest of the world must have done the same as North America, of course.

Devrim

Affirmative action was a key demand of both the mainstream Civil Rights movement and the Black Panther Party of Self Defense. Workers.

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/Panther_platform.html

We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the white American businessmen will not give full employment, then the means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

14th February 2014, 21:08

Okay, so qualifications don't matter. Fair enough, I will agree with you now.
What about jobs are given on a first come; first serve basis?

What about jobs being given to the person with the most amusing hat?

The chief task of the communist movement is to lead the proletariat through the smashing of the bourgeois state and the socialization of all means of production. The secondary task - secondary in the sense that it follows from the first - is to fight for concrete reforms that benefit the working class. If something has nothing to do with either of these tasks, it's not our department, to utterly misquote Tom Lehrer.

Affirmative action provides tangible albeit paltry benefits to working-class blacks, people with Hispanic ancestry etc. Of course, to the communist this isn't enough. But this means we must organize black and other workers to fight for more, not listen to the self-important complaints of the most privileged sector of the working class - or people who aren't working class at all - about evil minorities robbing them of their rightful job.

Can you give any actual examples of workers demanding affirmative action programmes?

I assume the examples exist. But you missed the point of my post - I didn't say that the workers' movement demanded affirmative action. In fact, militant working-class blacks demanded something more in the sixties - something the bourgeois state couldn't provide. Yet it was forced to make some sort of concession, hence affirmative action.

Likewise, in Germany, the working-class movement never explicitly demanded Bismarckian insurance laws etc., but these were the result of the pressures the socialist movement placed on the bourgeois German state.

Yes, the rest of the world must have done the same as North America, of course.

I think the more likely answer is that certain sections of the national bourgeoisie in several countries "got a clue" from the American bourgeoisie. Likewise, the struggle of American blacks - especially since it coincided with decolonization struggles - had a worldwide impact.

Devrim

15th February 2014, 10:40

Affirmative action was a key demand of both the mainstream Civil Rights movement and the Black Panther Party of Self Defense. Workers.

So you think that the 'mainstream civil rights movement' and a black nationalist group are akin to the workers movement? Oh dear. Also, the quotation from the BPP programme that you cite doesn't call for affirmative action. It doesn't have much relation to reality either. It is just quasi-Maoist nonsense.

I assume the examples exist.

I would assume that they don't, and until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this.

It seems to me very illogical to assume that this would have happened. In fact, I would imagine that you could more easily find examples of racists in the US labour movement protesting against it.

But you missed the point of my post - I didn't say that the workers' movement demanded affirmative action. In fact, militant working-class blacks demanded something more in the sixties - something the bourgeois state couldn't provide. Yet it was forced to make some sort of concession, hence affirmative action.

Your time frame doesn't really fit here though. The affirmative action programme was begun by President Kennedy in 1961 before the militancy that you are talking about had really emerged.

Likewise, in Germany, the working-class movement never explicitly demanded Bismarckian insurance laws etc., but these were the result of the pressures the socialist movement placed on the bourgeois German state.

It is not really relevant to the discussion, but you are wrong here too. The SPD programme included demands for all of the insurance laws introduced by Bismarck.

I think the more likely answer is that certain sections of the national bourgeoisie in several countries "got a clue" from the American bourgeoisie. Likewise, the struggle of American blacks - especially since it coincided with decolonization struggles - had a worldwide impact.

I brought this up just because I sometimes tire of the self-centredness of some North American posters on here. The situation in Europe was completely different. The immigrant populations started to come in the 1960s, Asians, and West Indians in the UK, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany etc... They were 'invited' to these countries because there was a labour shortage, and as such found it pretty easy to find jobs.

Certainly I don't think that the 'certain sections of the national bourgeoisie in several countries [in Europe] "got a clue" from the American bourgeoisie' on this point. In France, and some other European countries (including the UK*) programmes of this sort based on race would be totally illegal. They do exist in some countries, but are applied to such 'indigenous' minorities, such as Swedes in Finland as much as to more recent immigrants.

What affirmative action is applied to in Europe is mostly to women, and this is where people would know it from.

I don't know that much about US history, but I would imagine that the introduction of affirmative action had at least as much to do with the needs of capital as some imaginary 'pressure of the workers' movement'.

*There are certain exceptions in Northern Ireland

Criminalize Heterosexuality

15th February 2014, 11:10

So you think that the 'mainstream civil rights movement' and a black nationalist group are akin to the workers movement? Oh dear. Also, the quotation from the BPP programme that you cite doesn't call for affirmative action. It doesn't have much relation to reality either. It is just quasi-Maoist nonsense.

The Black Panthers started out as black nationalists with some semi-Maoist rhetoric - although their positions were certainly to the left of the SWP or CPUSA, for example - but they developed in a leftward direction and, if you consider the left Maoist groups to be part of the workers' movement - which doesn't mean they were consistently communist - then the late BPP should be included as well.

I would assume that they don't, and until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this.

It seems to me very illogical to assume that this would have happened. In fact, I would imagine that you could more easily find examples of racists in the US labour movement protesting against it.

Well - that depends on whether you consider "Nixon's SA" to be part of the labor movement. Since they were directly fighting for the bourgeois state, against other workers, and against even minimal reforms, I wouldn't.

I will try to find examples.

Your time frame doesn't really fit here though. The affirmative action programme was begun by President Kennedy in 1961 before the militancy that you are talking about had really emerged.

Kennedy's "affirmative action" was little more than a phrase and some vague promises. Affirmative action in its current form - or stronger - dates to the Johnson and Nixon administrations. By then the bourgeois state was feeling the pressures of black liberation struggles, workers' militancy, opposition to the war etc.

I brought this up just because I sometimes tire of the self-centredness of some North American posters on here. The situation in Europe was completely different. The immigrant populations started to come in the 1960s, Asians, and West Indians in the UK, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany etc... They were 'invited' to these countries because there was a labour shortage, and as such found it pretty easy to find jobs.

Certainly I don't think that the 'certain sections of the national bourgeoisie in several countries [in Europe] "got a clue" from the American bourgeoisie' on this point. In France, and some other European countries (including the UK*) programmes of this sort based on race would be totally illegal. They do exist in some countries, but are applied to such 'indigenous' minorities, such as Swedes in Finland as much as to more recent immigrants.

What affirmative action is applied to in Europe is mostly to women, and this is where people would know it from.

As much as I appreciate the struggle against Americanocentrism, this is slightly Eurocentric. You mentioned "the rest of the world" before, and now you're talking exclusively about Europe. But what about India, Sri Lanka, and so on?

Devrim

15th February 2014, 11:36

The Black Panthers started out as black nationalists with some semi-Maoist rhetoric - although their positions were certainly to the left of the SWP or CPUSA, for example - but they developed in a leftward direction and, if you consider the left Maoist groups to be part of the workers' movement - which doesn't mean they were consistently communist - then the late BPP should be included as well.

I think that the BBP was a reactionary political organisation, but that is not the point. I don't think that it is really possible to claim that something originates from the workers movement, and then back this up by saying that the civil rights movement and a leftist groups called for them. I don't think that these sort of groups, whether ı personally think they are reactionary or revolutionary, can be substituted for the workers' movement.

Well - that depends on whether you consider "Nixon's SA" to be part of the labor movement. Since they were directly fighting for the bourgeois state, against other workers, and against even minimal reforms, I wouldn't.

I don't know what you are talking about here. Certainly though there are many examples from across the world when parts of the workers movement has directly opposed other workers. I suppose it comes down to semantics whether you think they are part of the 'labour movement', or not, but these things happen.

As much as I appreciate the struggle against Americanocentrism, this is slightly Eurocentric. You mentioned "the rest of the world" before, and now you're talking exclusively about Europe. But what about India, Sri Lanka, and so on?

Kennedy's "affirmative action" was little more than a phrase and some vague promises. Affirmative action in its current form - or stronger - dates to the Johnson and Nixon administrations. By then the bourgeois state was feeling the pressures of black liberation struggles, workers' militancy, opposition to the war etc.

Nevertheless, the phrase and the vague promises were there. The order talks about 'taking affirmative action'. The idea certainly doesn't originate in pressure from black workers in the 60s because it was already there.

As much as I appreciate the struggle against Americanocentrism, this is slightly Eurocentric. You mentioned "the rest of the world" before, and now you're talking exclusively about Europe. But what about India, Sri Lanka, and so on?

It is focused on Europe because it is in reply to the following comment:

I presume the same occurred in Europe.Devrim

Criminalize Heterosexuality

15th February 2014, 11:51

I think that the BBP was a reactionary political organisation, but that is not the point. I don't think that it is really possible to claim that something originates from the workers movement, and then back this up by saying that the civil rights movement and a leftist groups called for them. I don't think that these sort of groups, whether ı personally think they are reactionary or revolutionary, can be substituted for the workers' movement.

I think the distinction is very relevant - are we talking about militant black workers, who are a part of the labor movement, even if they are not the whole part (insurance schemes in the US were also the result of pressure from the labor movement, even if a large section of the union bureaucracy led by Gompers opposed them), or a reactionary nationalist organization as you seem to imply? That is the chief question.

I don't know what you are talking about here. Certainly though there are many examples from across the world when parts of the workers movement has directly opposed other workers. I suppose it comes down to semantics whether you think they are part of the 'labour movement', or not, but these things happen.

"Nixon's SA" was the socialist nickname for reactionary white workers who broke up socialist and peace demonstrations etc. etc. It seems you consider any group whose membership is mostly proletarian and which is politically active to be part of the labor movement.

Nevertheless, the phrase and the vague promises were there. The order talks about 'taking affirmative action'. The idea certainly doesn't originate in pressure from black workers in the 60s because it was already there.

But the idea is not the word - the only thing Kennedy's "affirmative action" and affirmative action as it actually exists share is the name.

tachosomoza

15th February 2014, 15:45

Devrim

15th February 2014, 17:29

So, a movement has to be comprised mainly of white people who subscribe to your way of thinking to be considered a true part of the workers' movement?

No, that is not what I said at all. What I said was:

I don't think that these sort of groups, whether I personally think they are reactionary or revolutionary, can be substituted for the workers' movement.

Political groups are not the workers movement. I don't think that you can substitute them for it.

Anything that develops to address the unique and special struggles of an oppressed nation of minority workers in America is "nonsense" now?

No, that quote in particular is quasi-Maoist nonsense.

You seem to have complete lost the point, which is whether affirmative action programmes were implemented due to 'pressure of the workers movement'. This digression has allowed you to imply that I am some sort of racist though, which I am sure is much easier than coming up with an actual argument.

Devrim

tachosomoza

15th February 2014, 17:31

So, political groups and movements made up of workers aren't the workers' movement? Even if they struggle to improve the lives of workers when they suffer under racial oppression? Because Devrim says so. Gotcha.

Zanters

15th February 2014, 17:38

I am conflicted on this. While I do support AA, I still think it needs refining in order to be used efficiently.

But I don't see why we have to work with the capitalist system, when in revolution, AA wouldn't be needed because the workers revolution solved it.

So if anything, support the revolution, and quit worrying about compromising. Support the movement for equal rights in a revolutionary format rather than that of a reactionary.

Then again, maybe my definition of AA is different then what is being discussed. If so, I apologizes for rambling about something that doesn't even resemble the matter at hand.

Devrim

15th February 2014, 17:55

"Nixon's SA" was the socialist nickname for reactionary white workers who broke up socialist and peace demonstrations etc. etc. It seems you consider any group whose membership is mostly proletarian and which is politically active to be part of the labor movement.

No, I would consider that groups of workers backing right-wing politicians were necessarily a part of the labour movement. As I said I didn't know who this term referred to. When these sort of activities are organised through the trade unions though, I would say that they are. The UWC strike in Northern Ireland would be an example of this. Nor do I hold the labour movement on some lofty pedestal. The labour movement is quite often in opposition to the working class. I was merely responding to claims made on here.

I think the distinction is very relevant - are we talking about militant black workers, who are a part of the labor movement, even if they are not the whole part (insurance schemes in the US were also the result of pressure from the labor movement, even if a large section of the union bureaucracy led by Gompers opposed them), or a reactionary nationalist organization as you seem to imply? That is the chief question.

I don't think that this is the question at all. The question is whether affirmative action policies are the result of the 'pressure of the workers movement' as you stated. As I have said, I personally think this unlikely, and nobody has shown me anything to make me think anything to the contrary. Rather there have just been vague claims that it was a result of all sorts of things.

I don't know much about it at all, but when I think about it, what comes to mind is that the 60s was a time of high employment when it was reasonably easy to find a job. What sort of jobs were these programmes enacted in? I would imagine that more than a fair percentage of them were applied to 'middle class' jobs. I would imagine that a lot of it is tied in with the development of a black middle class.

But the idea is not the word - the only thing Kennedy's "affirmative action" and affirmative action as it actually exists share is the name.

Are you claiming that there is no connection whatsoever between these things?

Devrim

A Revolutionary Tool

15th February 2014, 22:04

So, you're saying it's okay to favour one person for a job over another, just because they are a certain race?Kind of like how white people have been doing in America for centuries? Maybe you don't understand how prevalent racism was and how it meant black people were treated as second class citizens, how white people wouldn't hire black people unless they wanted a janitor or something. It is systematic oppression, if you were black it didn't matter how smart you were, those other higher paying jobs were reserved for white people, you were born and immediately had a salary cap of basically poverty because of the color of your skin. If the state makes an incursion into property rights and says we're not going to allow that anymore, and since you won't end your racist business practices that only work to split the working class(white privilege) we're going to make you hire at least X amount of black people I'm not going to be against it.

I agree we should do our utmost best to help anyone who is lower down in the 'class system', but we shouldn't base it on race. I agree, slavery was disgusting and really shows us how bad human beings can be. But none of these men are slaves, or ever were.Systematic racism didn't die with slavery, even until this day you're more likely to get a call back on a resume if you have a white sounding name even if the person with the black sounding name had the same qualifications. I wish we didn't have to put into consideration race either, but considering history you'll see the issue of class and race are very connected. Think about it, how is it not a class issue when some white people decided it was okay to kidnap other humans, or buy them, and then sell them to other white people who put them to work and would never pay them? Then after slavery decided that if they were going to be "free" labor, that they were going to be kept in impoverished conditions and terrorized if they even thought of stepping out of line and demand actual freedom from the confines of racist oppression and demand the same treatment that white people could get.

Of course Affirmative Action is not the best thing in the world, it's essentially a concession made by the capitalist class so it's not going to help everybody and everybody who believes we live in a post-racist society or who are trying to defend white privilege can cry about how it's unfair they didn't get the job or the scholarship but if it was a white person who got it because they outcompeted you for it it would have been completely fine because...er that's how capitalism works? Meritocracy ftw! Because the invisible hand(that's white) of the free market is always fair.

Bostana

15th February 2014, 22:23

This is racist. .

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
No it's fucking not

Devrim

15th February 2014, 23:53

Of course Affirmative Action is not the best thing in the world, it's essentially a concession made by the capitalist class so it's not going to help everybody and everybody who believes we live in a post-racist society or who are trying to defend white privilege can cry about how it's unfair they didn't get the job or the scholarship but if it was a white person who got it because they outcompeted you for it it would have been completely fine because...er that's how capitalism works? Meritocracy ftw! Because the invisible hand(that's white) of the free market is always fair.

Why do you term it a concession? Doesn't a concession imply that the capitalist class are actually giving up something. Here though they are not. It doesn't matter to the capitalists which particular workers they employ. The cost of labour is still the same. There is no concession here at all.

Devrim

A Revolutionary Tool

16th February 2014, 01:25

Why do you term it a concession? Doesn't a concession imply that the capitalist class are actually giving up something. Here though they are not. It doesn't matter to the capitalists which particular workers they employ. The cost of labour is still the same. There is no concession here at all.

Devrim

I'd say that is the concession because it HELPS take away one of their weapons that is used to divide the working class, that of course being racism. Of course the capitalists don't very much care about what worker is going to work and get him a profit but part of white privilege was saying you're white, I'm white, I'm going to give you the better job and let the "others" do that work we don't want to do. I'm going to give you the job with better pay, I'm going to give you the job where you manage all the other filthy colored people, when opportunities arrive it's going to you the white person. Many proletarians fall into that trap of white nationalism and end up never questioning the wage-slavery of their capitalist because they think at least they're above the black people, that they're a pay-grade above them(and often black workers didn't make the same money for the same work so there is a cost factor for the capitalists), that the capitalist has their back because they are the same skin color. To give you an anecdote of how racism can effect the workplace even now, once working at McDonalds I overheard someone say "I don't want to take out the trash, that's nigger work, have X take out the trash instead." There demand wasn't met thankfully but that mentality can have devestating effects on any working class movement that might try to be organized especially when it's there in such a mass scale. This is in California too, not even the deep south as one might expect. It's no wonder that the hardest place for communists, socialists, trade unions, and even liberals, to organize the most is the South.

So it's definitely a concession for the black community(and many others, women, Hispanics, Asians, etc) though it's no forty acres and a mule.

RealYehuda

16th February 2014, 02:31

tachosomoza

16th February 2014, 05:56

As a black male I find it incredibly patronising that you feel that we African-Americans are incapable of advancing ourselves without being helped significantly by the cracker

Affirmative action is quasi-supremacist nonsense

As a black male I find it incredibly ridiculous of you to use racial slurs that denigrate our comrades of European ancestry and call people supremacists when you're a member of a black supremacist cult.

Jimmie Higgins

16th February 2014, 10:03

As a black male I find it incredibly patronising that you feel that we African-Americans are incapable of advancing ourselves without being helped significantly by the cracker

Affirmative action is quasi-supremacist nonsense

These programs were not just handed out - actually after WWII with the "we're all in this together" propaganda of the time there were some anti-discrimination laws put on the books with only some pressure from liberal organizations like the NAACP. But these laws were never followed of course and racist leadership in unions would blame the employers for discrimination and the employers would blame the union for not accepting non-whites, etc. In California, the laws didn't even have any enforcement mandates so they were literally just some words on paper. It took much more militant organizing to actually make these things enforced and it was through black political coalitions that these laws began to be adopted.

White workers can't really just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and they have the best chance of any workers in the US. Racism and hiring and housing discrimination ensure that there's a limit to how much someone can just try and make it in the system if you're not white. You probably disagree, but I think historically and the lessons of movements in the past is that black landlords or black employers and black politicians, even with the best intentions, are not able to create a capitalist bubble where the effects of racism don't impact people. Capitalism needs to keep some people at the bottom and in the US racism ensure that blacks are first on that list.

Can you give any actual examples of workers demanding affirmative action programmes?In the Bay Area the San Francisco general strike involved the union creating an alliance with the black community to fight for hiring black workers on the docks. Of course this is a more direct example, but it was in conditions of more class militancy than in the 60s. In the bay area, it was a 20 year fight that began with democratic-socialist labor organizations and was concluded with black power organizing including a broad array of political tendencies including the Black Panther Party--it was mostly for work in construction but also involved fighting against segregated conditions in the service sector where blacks in the Bay Area were still made to enter in the back and be invisible.

All else being equal, the method of the SF general strike where fair employment is linked to increased worker influence and control in hiring would be preferable than a law that is applied passively (or you need to keep fighting to ensure that it's enforced at all). Leninists/Black Nationalists in Detroit organized an organization within the Autoworkers unions to fight both bosses and white worker racism which also showed the potential to rally non-racist white workers to support black and Arab workers in the plants. But this was a late development - after the Panthers peaked - and was still new when the recessions of the 1970s began.

But unfortunately things didn't continue to develop in these ways, but the reforms were implemented for a time and helped decrease racial class inequalities, which have been rising again since the 90s. And since racial divides are the biggest Achilles heel for the US working class, I think it does make sense for workers to defend them. The attack on affirmative action in the US didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened in the context of increased class competition for jobs, attacks on the whole idea of protections in hiring at all (with libertarians arguing that it's the right of employers not to hire or serve any non-whites if they want in their own business), and a specific de-valuation of black labor as "lazy", cheap, etc. All the arguments against affermitive action programs in the US were built on the myth that it causes "underqualified" people to be hired: in effect arguing that non-white labor is not as qualified or valuable.

Devrim

16th February 2014, 11:17

In the Bay Area the San Francisco general strike involved the union creating an alliance with the black community to fight for hiring black workers on the docks. Of course this is a more direct example, but it was in conditions of more class militancy than in the 60s.

Your example has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand though. It is not linked at all to affirmative action, nobody is demanding an affirmative action programme, and it happened decades before what we are discussing. It sort of misses the point spectacularly.

Devrim

Devrim

16th February 2014, 11:25

I'd say that is the concession because it HELPS take away one of their weapons that is used to divide the working class, that of course being racism.

I don't think that affirmative action programmes have taken away the weapon of racism from the ruling class in any way. It is still very much there. In fact one could even present an argument that affirmative action programmes actually give the racists more ammunition to argue with. We can certainly see those sort of arguments being echoed on this thread.

Which brings us back to the question of what actually concessions were made.

Devrim

Jimmie Higgins

16th February 2014, 12:11

I don't think that affirmative action programmes have taken away the weapon of racism from the ruling class in any way.Unless you believe that racism in capitalism can be reformed away, then this argument is irrelevant to the question of a reform in relation to working class. Winning the right to unionize didn't end exploitation, so is this irrelevant to the struggles necessary to even get to that point or the ability of people to organize or not? Abortion rights didn't eliminate sexism, so it's not worth it to fight against attempts to re-criminalize abortion?

It is still very much there. In fact one could even present an argument that affirmative action programmes actually give the racists more ammunition to argue with. We can certainly see those sort of arguments being echoed on this thread.So right-wing propaganda is more important for the class movement to fight against than divisions within the class which actually create racial and ethnic tiers and group-competition within the working class? This is a horrible rationale that's parallel to arguments in the US that corporations have so much power because unions "over-reached" and there were too many welfare reforms in the 60s.

Which brings us back to the question of what actually concessions were made.The ability to maintain a tired workforce, the ability of white liberal union leadership to collaborate with bosses in support of segregation and white ethnic protectionism on the job unchallenged, the ability to segregate and make invisible the working conditions of black people, immigrants, etc. In the context of social movements, it represented a development out of seeing civil rights as a matter of legal equality and confronting structural and economic elements of racial oppression.

Devrim

17th February 2014, 10:29

Unless you believe that racism in capitalism can be reformed away, then this argument is irrelevant to the question of a reform in relation to working class. Winning the right to unionize didn't end exploitation, so is this irrelevant to the struggles necessary to even get to that point or the ability of people to organize or not? Abortion rights didn't eliminate sexism, so it's not worth it to fight against attempts to re-criminalize abortion?

I think that theoretically that capitalism is possible without racism. Whether this can actually be achieved is more doubtful. certainly I think society overall is becoming less racist with time.

However, I don't see what this has at all to do with reforms. I don't think that affirmative action is a reform, and it is certainly not a concession. The working class, as a whole, does not benefit from it. Individual workers may of course benefit, which means that other individuals will lose out because what we are talking about is how the capitalists allocate jobs. Spreading them around in a different way does not bring a benefit to the working class as a whole. It is not something like the eight-hour day, which clearly was a reform which benefited the class as a whole.

So right-wing propaganda is more important for the class movement to fight against than divisions within the class which actually create racial and ethnic tiers and group-competition within the working class?

No, I wasn't making that argument. I would have thought that the phrase "In fact one could even present an argument that" showed clear enough intent to distance myself from that argument. I suppose it doesn't matter if you are just taking cheap shots though.

Nevertheless, I am sure that more conscious sectors of the bourgeoisie certainly considered it, and put serious thought into how to use these things to further divide the working class.

This is a horrible rationale that's parallel to arguments in the US that corporations have so much power because unions "over-reached" and there were too many welfare reforms in the 60s.

I have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever.

The ability to maintain a tired workforce, the ability of white liberal union leadership to collaborate with bosses in support of segregation and white ethnic protectionism on the job unchallenged, the ability to segregate and make invisible the working conditions of black people, immigrants, etc.

I am tired at my work regardless of these sort of programmes. I presume you mean tiered.

As for "the ability of [the] white liberal union leadership to collaborate with bosses", now I presume it is a multi-racial union leadership, which collaborates with the bosses. These things are only concessions when you believe that the capitalists are some evil racist ogres who are completely against black people being anywhere but slaves on a plantation. Perhaps in the real world though they wanted some of these things in order to increase profitability.

That is not to say that there aren't strata of the capitalist class who aren't extremely backward, who may have wanted to hold on to these things. The anti-union campaign around the VW plant is ample proof of this. It is not all of them though.

So where are the concessions?

Devrim

Criminalize Heterosexuality

17th February 2014, 15:04

No, I would consider that groups of workers backing right-wing politicians were necessarily a part of the labour movement. As I said I didn't know who this term referred to. When these sort of activities are organised through the trade unions though, I would say that they are. The UWC strike in Northern Ireland would be an example of this. Nor do I hold the labour movement on some lofty pedestal. The labour movement is quite often in opposition to the working class. I was merely responding to claims made on here.

Alright, but that seems like a very restrictive notion of the labor movement, to me at least. If you want to use this kind of definition - alright, simply replace "the labor movement" with "the labor and socialist movement". The fact remains that minority groups of militant workers can force concessions from the capitalist state, although not to the same extent as mass movements.

I don't know much about it at all, but when I think about it, what comes to mind is that the 60s was a time of high employment when it was reasonably easy to find a job. What sort of jobs were these programmes enacted in? I would imagine that more than a fair percentage of them were applied to 'middle class' jobs. I would imagine that a lot of it is tied in with the development of a black middle class.

The first affirmative action programs concerned the defense industry and construction, hardly bastions of a black "middle class" (what does that even mean? the petite bourgeoisie? labor aristocracy, technical intelligentsia?).

Are you claiming that there is no connection whatsoever between these things?

The connection is in the name, and nothing else. Kennedy obviously had nothing concrete in mind, whereas Nixon was already toying with the idea of quotas etc.

I think that theoretically that capitalism is possible without racism. Whether this can actually be achieved is more doubtful. certainly I think society overall is becoming less racist with time.

But this ignores how capitalism as it actually appears in America depends on the special oppression of black people. Racism and other forms of special oppression aren't simply something that accidentally happens in capitalism, they serve the interest of the bourgeoisie by dividing the proletariat, not simply politically, but economically into a number of different race-color-gender layers, enabling some truly heroic feats of alleviating the decline in the rate of profit - from using black workers as ultra-cheap labor to the feminization of certain professions leading to a steep drop in wages. Affirmative action removes some of the precarity of black labor, which would lead to higher wages for all workers were it not for the precarious position of migrant labor.

RealYehuda

19th February 2014, 00:08

As a black male I find it incredibly ridiculous of you to use racial slurs that denigrate our comrades of European ancestry and call people supremacists when you're a member of a black supremacist cult.

It is impossible to be racist to an ethnic group that holds a significantly higher position in society than yourself, sure cracker is not a nice word but there is no historical and modern discrimination and deprivation behind that word

Nation of Islam my brother, out.

Devrim

19th February 2014, 09:09

,
Alright, but that seems like a very restrictive notion of the labor movement, to me at least. If you want to use this kind of definition - alright, simply replace "the labor movement" with "the labor and socialist movement". The fact remains that minority groups of militant workers can force concessions from the capitalist state, although not to the same extent as mass movements.

As I said, I don't think that you can substitute small political groups for the working class. I don't know what you mean by "minority groups of militant workers", who you believe can force concessions, and perhaps more to the point I don't see any concessions.

The first affirmative action programs concerned the defense industry and construction, hardly bastions of a black "middle class" (what does that even mean? the petite bourgeoisie? labor aristocracy, technical intelligentsia?).

I am not claiming to be an expert on these programmes in the US. In fact I even asked for details of what sort of jobs these things were aimed at. Certainly in Europe where these things are more often aimed at women, it tends to be about getting more women into management positions.

The connection is in the name, and nothing else. Kennedy obviously had nothing concrete in mind, whereas Nixon was already toying with the idea of quotas etc.

From the little I have read on this subject over the last few days, it is clear that Kennedy didn't have it all planned out, but that is the way that things work. First you decide to solve a problem, and then you flesh ot the details.

But this ignores how capitalism as it actually appears in America depends on the special oppression of black people.

People used to say that talking about 'special circumstances' was always a step on the road to opportunism.

Affirmative action removes some of the precarity of black labor, which would lead to higher wages for all workers were it not for the precarious position of migrant labor.

I think that America is the most racial divided 'normal' society that I have been to. I have been to other places, such as Lebanon, and Northern Ireland where the splits are deeper, but they are places that are completely dominated by sectarian politics where class politics find it really difference to emerge through the interests of separate 'ethnic' groups. The US isn't quite that bad, but I remember the first time I was there getting off a subway, and seeing all the whites go one way, and all the blacks go another and being deeply shocked.

In Northern Ireland or Lebanon, it makes perfect sense to people to struggle for concessions to their group. I think that quotas is a step on the way to that sort of situation.

I am not very clear here as I have to rush to work, but think you get the basic idea.

Derim

∞

21st February 2014, 07:44

Damn this is an old thread. Black people should be given AA, unless its someone whos a top-earner.

But yeah I'm not sure what my view was 2+ years ago.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

21st February 2014, 08:14

Well no, the world, as much as it may surprise some people on here, does actually stretch beyond the shores of North America. There are affirmative action programmes in many countries, which this clearly does not apply to.

Even in the US though while there may have been demands for equal access it is a long way from that to saying that affirmative action is the result of 'pressure of the workers movement'. Could you show some examples, such as workers going on strike in favour of these sort of programmes, please?

Devrim

Considering that most of these reforms were carried out soon after the black riots of 1968, the only time by the way the US has come anything close to a revolutionary situation in the post WW2 era, yea these were working class reforms. If anything they were the result of the struggle of a sub section of the class which fits into more qualifications for being proletarian that most other sections which can successfully guarantee reforms, such as the various laws protecting trade unions which have no relevance to the wider working class but do serve to enrich a large strand of the labor aristocrats which are about as "proletarian" as the British prime minster, insofar that they do not own the means of production and that they are paid in wages but that is such a reductionist definition that it is theoretically useless.