Marxist perspective on racism in america.

[ponymaruni3]

What is the materialist/marxist perspective on racism in America?

1. Is racism in america owned to the fact that whites historically speaking have owned the means of production, and when you own the means of production you are paid more. Since whites have owned the means of production they are paid more while minorites are stuck playing by the white mans rules. The fact that whites have owned all the means of production means that there will be less inter-relationships with other minorities since they are held to lower paid jobs thus causing racism?. Is this a proper marxist perspective?

2. Or is racism just a tool used by capitalism to increase capitalist wages by paying less to minorities, which i doubt because if that were true then companies would only be hiring blacks.

Btw im new to marxism although ive been a communist for a much longer time.

[Geiseric]

White workers have always been paid more, been given jobs, and better jobs at that because white ownrs always want to divide the working class into imaginary groups to prevent things like unionizing and working class solidarity in general. The idea though is for having people competing for a chanceto sell their labor. Its easier to convince the white population to accept lower wages if the owners are pitting them against minorities.

[Marxaveli]

I agree with the above post. A counter-argument that some reactionaries will try to use is that racism is older than Capitalism, therefore it isn't the latters fault that there is racism. But this is easily dispelled by the fact that racism or any other socially constructed division is a natural by-product of any class antagonist system - Capitalism included. So while Capitalism may not have caused racism, it certainly helps to perpetuate it, and had Capitalism been the first class antagonist system in history, racism would still have came to be.

[Geiseric]

No racism didn't exist before capitalism. It all started during the colonialization of africa. Racism is to convince white people to go along with low wages, ALMOST as low as black workers.

[Positivist]

I attach it to that the antagonistic relations of exchange result in the development of violently individualist patterns of thought where "others" are viewed as enemies. This though only explains the breakdown of social interaction in society. It is only when these established patterns of thought are extended to entire groups (usually based on appearance) that racism emerges. I've developed this as an alternative to the rather conspiratorial notion that the capitalists are consciously dividing the working class in order to avoid revolt.

As for economic discrimination (where members of certain groups, races are paid lesser wages and/or work in lesser conditions) I attribute it to that businessmen can get away with it due to the "popularity" of racism and that capitalists themselves hold these antagonistic patterns of thought.

Furthermore, since racism tends to rise during crises, it is probable that when confronted by a newly onset difficult situation that many people will long for a previous mode of living where things weren't as bad. Since popular conception of a mode of living is mostly based on superficial things, people will see the deportation, oppression or even extermination of a recently arrived racial group as imperative to the restoration of better living conditions. It is also possible that groups whom racist sentiments have been fostered towards by the other described mechanism become the target of scapegoating.

[blake 3:17]

One of the best accounts of racism in the US is Dave Roediger's Wages of Whiteness. He describes White identity as a kind of false wage, which benefited the financial interests of capital and acted as a psychological compensation for White workers, who could dissociate themselves from Black slaves. The term "boss" (which means master in Dutch) was adopted so that "free" White workers could differentiate themselves from unfree Black workers.

David McNally's book Another World is Possible has a very insightful chapter on the historical developments of racism and capitalism. It is very dense, but probably the best English language Marxist overview of the subject.

[Le Socialiste]

Racism in America dates way back, but it helps to understand its origins. Originally, as the need for a larger labor market in N. America grew, white indentured servants worked alongside black slaves. While indentured servants labored for a fixed number of years before moving on, blacks were typically denied this opportunity; however, landowners, slaveowners, and the ascendant interests of the emerging colonial elite feared the potentiality of whites and blacks banding together against the harsh, miserable conditions confronting them. This fear wasn't necessarily unfounded either: in 1676 former indentured servants, including poor whites and blacks, fomented and engaged in a rebellion against Virginian governor William Berkeley (who had to return to Britain) and torched Jamestown, then the capital of the colony. Now, it should be noted that one of the primary causes for the revolt was Berkeley's reluctance to retaliate against a series of attacks made by Native Americans against the colony, which resulted in groups of whites and blacks attacking and displacing the surrounding Native population.

It was enough to strike fear into the minds of the ruling colonial class though, who swiftly concluded that a united underclass of poor whites and blacks would threaten their livelihoods and standing. As prices for English servants rose and that of Africans became less expensive, indentured servanthood declined, soon to be replaced by the institutionalization of racial slavery. In order to guard against future acts of solidarity between whites and blacks, the land and slave owning class sought to "elevate" the status of poor whites by introducing notions of racial superiority and inferiority - whites occupying the former, blacks the latter. Yet both whites and blacks suffered for it (the latter more so than the former), as unity between the two weakened and frayed, permitting the upper-classes enough maneuverability to manipulate and exploit both. While efforts to bridge the "divide" were attempted (populist Thomas E. Watson urged poor whites and poor blacks to unite around their collective economic self-interests before becoming a white supremacist himself by the turn of the 20th-century), these either collapsed under the weight of existing attitudes and prejudices or were co-opted and later disbanded by the Democratic and Republican parties, who couldn't tolerate a united front between blacks and whites.

Racism serves a very specific purpose, which is the division of the laboring class along racial lines and prejudices, preempting any present or future movement that may see blacks, whites, latinos/as, asians, and others come together to utilize their collective weight and strength to pressure ruling-class circles into acquiescing on certain demands or to overthrow the reigning class itself. Capitalism fosters and perpetuates these divisions, that extend even further along gender, sex/sexuality, and religious lines, creating situations where workers might be isolated and weakened by refusing to coordinate or work with others depending on their race, nationality, sex/sexuality, or religion. It serves a useful purpose, and the bourgeoisie exploit it to the fullest extent possible whenever opportunities present themselves. Racism then is a development fostered as a means of keeping the working-class isolated, separated, and lacking in proper modes of organization capable of upsetting - and even overthrowing - the existing social and material factors holding it back.

[CryingWolf]

I think to answer the question, why does capitalism perpetuate racism, we need to break it down a bit.

The first important question is, why do workers maintain racist attitudes and beliefs? Most of the discrimination racial minorities face comes from fellow workers. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. Reactionaries especially.

I think racism is something like an "exclusive club" phenomenon. Racism allows people to arbitrarily categorize each other into an "in-group" and an "out-group". Now, in any bargaining situation with capitalists, and then eventually throughout society in general, the "out-group" is the group that we can safely throw under the bus if we have to. Someone needs to be fired? Black people go first. Note that this raises the status of the "in-group" in these kinds of situations and gives them an advantage. It's a useful privilege that they won't want to lose. I also said that the categorization is arbitrary, and this is important because skin-color has nothing to do with skill or other kinds of desirable qualities that an employer may look for. Thus, relatively unskilled whites are in a better position to compete for jobs than somewhat higher skilled blacks.

The second part of the puzzle is, why do capitalists maintain racist attitudes and beliefs? Well this one is quite obvious. To divide up the working class. This makes it harder for workers to organize strikes since the black workers won't want to risk being fired if they think the white workers are going to betray them (and they probably will).

This theory explains why racial minorities are in the paradoxical position of at once being paid less while also being less likely to be hired. I think it also explains why racism is more prevalent in places where workers have to compete for lower level jobs such as manufacturing.

It's a very interesting subject, and I think it goes a lot deeper than this. But I'm too lazy to keep writing about it here.

[Marxaveli]

Racism in America dates way back, but it helps to understand its origins. Originally, as the need for a larger labor market in N. America grew, white indentured servants worked alongside black slaves. While indentured servants labored for a fixed number of years before moving on, blacks were typically denied this opportunity; however, landowners, slaveowners, and the ascendant interests of the emerging colonial elite feared the potentiality of whites and blacks banding together against the harsh, miserable conditions confronting them. This fear wasn't necessarily unfounded either: in 1676 former indentured servants, including poor whites and blacks, fomented and engaged in a rebellion against Virginian governor William Berkeley (who had to return to Britain) and torched Jamestown, then the capital of the colony. Now, it should be noted that one of the primary causes for the revolt was Berkeley's reluctance to retaliate against a series of attacks made by Native Americans against the colony, which resulted in groups of whites and blacks attacking and displacing the surrounding Native population.

It was enough to strike fear into the minds of the ruling colonial class though, who swiftly concluded that a united underclass of poor whites and blacks would threaten their livelihoods and standing. As prices for English servants rose and that of Africans became less expensive, indentured servanthood declined, soon to be replaced by the institutionalization of racial slavery. In order to guard against future acts of solidarity between whites and blacks, the land and slave owning class sought to "elevate" the status of poor whites by introducing notions of racial superiority and inferiority - whites occupying the former, blacks the latter. Yet both whites and blacks suffered for it (the latter more so than the former), as unity between the two weakened and frayed, permitting the upper-classes enough maneuverability to manipulate and exploit both. While efforts to bridge the "divide" were attempted (populist Thomas E. Watson urged poor whites and poor blacks to unite around their collective economic self-interests before becoming a white supremacist himself by the turn of the 20th-century), these either collapsed under the weight of existing attitudes and prejudices or were co-opted and later disbanded by the Democratic and Republican parties, who couldn't tolerate a united front between blacks and whites.

Racism serves a very specific purpose, which is the division of the laboring class along racial lines and prejudices, preempting any present or future movement that may see blacks, whites, latinos/as, asians, and others come together to utilize their collective weight and strength to pressure ruling-class circles into acquiescing on certain demands or to overthrow the reigning class itself. Capitalism fosters and perpetuates these divisions, that extend even further along gender, sex/sexuality, and religious lines, creating situations where workers might be isolated and weakened by refusing to coordinate or work with others depending on their race, nationality, sex/sexuality, or religion. It serves a useful purpose, and the bourgeoisie exploit it to the fullest extent possible whenever opportunities present themselves. Racism then is a development fostered as a means of keeping the working-class isolated, separated, and lacking in proper modes of organization capable of upsetting - and even overthrowing - the existing social and material factors holding it back.

A perfect Marxian analysis of Bacon's Rebellion :) Great post comrade. And of course, the ruling white class used policies such as land ownership qualifications and lower taxes (geez, this sounds really familiar doesn't it? lol) with small elements of fascism (harsher policies regarding Native Americans) to intensify this ethnocentric division between whites and blacks.

[Keath]

Is America as racist as it was in the past? Clearly people tend not to be openly racist these days. I do notice institutionalized racism in America but it does seem that over time America has gradually started to become more classist as compared to racist although America still clearly is a very racist society.

[Le Socialiste]

Is America as racist as it was in the past? Clearly people tend not to be openly racist these days. I do notice institutionalized racism in America but it does seem that over time America has gradually started to become more classist as compared to racist although America still clearly is a very racist society.

Today you have black men, women, or children gunned down and murdered by law enforcement every 36 hours; in the first six months of 2012 alone, police, security, and so-called "vigilantes" have killed 110 black people (according to Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (http://mxgm.org/)). The vast majority of these deaths have been the result of racial profiling, stop and frisk policies, as well as a general atmosphere and culture that labels blacks, latinos/as, and other minorities as a problem. You can't have class society without racism.

[cynicles]

No racism didn't exist before capitalism. It all started during the colonialization of africa. Racism is to convince white people to go along with low wages, ALMOST as low as black workers.
You're joking right?

[#FF0000]

You're joking right?

He's correct, actually. Our concept of race is entirely modern and didn't exist before capitalism.

[cynicles]

He's correct, actually. Our concept of race is entirely modern and didn't exist before capitalism.
Racism may have taken a different form and conception prior to capitalism but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at earlier points.

[Ostrinski]

Racism may have taken a different form and conception prior to capitalism but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at earlier points.Well are you gonna provide some examples or demonstrations or what

[Ocean Seal]

Well are you gonna provide some examples or demonstrations or what
I presume that you post this because capitalism is the progenitor of racism.
You are correct, as usual. The slave states (2 MoP) were based directly upon the exploitation of one set of tribes over another because of conquest, not through well defined ideas of race. Power, and not the ethics of superiority. The third MoP was also based on regional and national dickwaving, but exploitation was pretty uniform across race and of course there did not exist the capital for colonialism/ imperialism which provided an economic basis for racism.
Hope this helps the OP.

[Peoples' War]

If you're looking for any works on the issues of racism in America, CLR James has good work regarding Afro-Americans.

[cynicles]

Well are you gonna provide some examples or demonstrations or what
Which ones? The Ancient Egyptian conceptions of race that subdivides people into 4 categories of "Nubians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Egyptians or the one common in Ancient Greece put forward by Hippocrates that climate played a mjour role, like how people from more temperate climates were "sluggish and lazy" and people from mountainous regions we're more "warlike and barbaric"?

Oh and thanks for being a dick.

[Marxaveli]

He's correct, actually. Our concept of race is entirely modern and didn't exist before capitalism.

Actually, no he isn't. Class antagonist systems precede racism, and demonstrably so. Le Socialiste's example of Bacon's Rebellion is a perfect example of pre-Capitalist racism. Just because "our" concept of racism is modern doesn't mean that racism itself didn't exist or occur in older societies, and to think otherwise is plain ridiculous.

[#FF0000]

Actually, no he isn't. Class antagonist systems precede racism, and demonstrably so. Le Socialiste's example of Bacon's Rebellion is a perfect example of pre-Capitalist racism. Just because "our" concept of racism is modern doesn't mean that racism itself didn't exist or occur in older societies, and to think otherwise is plain ridiculous.

Nope. Xenophobia and othering has always existed, but the concept of dividing up races according to skin tones and phenotype is exclusively modern. The very concept of race is modern. Racism, then, is a modern phenomenon as well.

"Othering" and bigotry has existed in other forms, but "racism" is relatively new.

[Marxaveli]

So the colonization of Africa by Europe in the 14th century doesn't constitute as racism? Nor does the Inquisition I suppose? During the former, Ibn Khaldun, a Tunisian student wrote the following:

"beyond known peoples of black West Africa to the south, there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."

I would say that qualifies as racist. Anyone who even knows the slightest about history knows that racism is older than Capitalism. MUCH older, in fact.

[Le Socialiste]

#FF0000 is right, actually. Racism as we know and understand it has only existed for a relatively short period of time. Prior to this, prejudicial and/or bigoted views concerning other peoples, cultures, etc. were rather common, albeit in a form not immediately evident to us.

[Geiseric]

Which ones? The Ancient Egyptian conceptions of race that subdivides people into 4 categories of "Nubians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Egyptians or the one common in Ancient Greece put forward by Hippocrates that climate played a mjour role, like how people from more temperate climates were "sluggish and lazy" and people from mountainous regions we're more "warlike and barbaric"?

Oh and thanks for being a dick.

None of that is racism though. Mountainous regions such as peru can't develop the same way as say greece because there aren't any oxen or horses. Hot weather makes you tired, that's not racism.

racism is "Asian people are bad drivers." or "Black people are lazy." It's centered around skin color.

Those divisions aren't really racist either, it just describes the region you're from. Romans enslaved jews, germanics, egyptians, other romans, slavs, and celtics all the same way. You cease being bound to that region and now you are a slave owned by rome. Many slaves back then were freed after working or serving in the roman army for long enough, which was the norm untill about the 16th century, regardless of where you were from.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One thing that is unique about modern racism is the way science was infused into it. That obviously was a carry-over from the Enlightenment, so it's a relatively recent development, but the idea of attempting to give race a strong objective character through things like bone structure, blood admixture etc. is definitely a defining feature of the beginnings of modern racism. Whole books were written about the concept of race, such as Madison Grant's "The Passing of the Great Race" (1916), which argued that Irish people were sufficiently Nordic but Italians were a lowly race and undeveloped.

[Geiseric]

So the colonization of Africa by Europe in the 14th century doesn't constitute as racism? Nor does the Inquisition I suppose? During the former, Ibn Khaldun, a Tunisian student wrote the following:

"beyond known peoples of black West Africa to the south, there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."

I would say that qualifies as racist. Anyone who even knows the slightest about history knows that racism is older than Capitalism. MUCH older, in fact.

Colonialization happened in the beginning of capitalism. What you described is the proto phase of modern racism. The inquisition wasn't racist though, it was simply reactionary to anybody who spoke against the church. But cheuvanism based on skin color did not exist in ancient rome, or any medieval kingdom. They fought against other religeons and cultures, but didn't treat them differently depending on if they were black, brown, or any other kind of demographic that modern racists would consider a race.

[Marxaveli]

I kind of see what you guys are saying, but I'm still skeptical that there was no marginalization of people because of their skin color back then. Sure, it may not have been the dominant division at the time, compared to say religion, but I find it difficult to believe that it was absolutely non-existent.

[Ostrinski]

Oh and thanks for being a dick.Sorry.

[#FF0000]

I kind of see what you guys are saying, but I'm still skeptical that there was no marginalization of people because of their skin color back then. Sure, it may not have been the dominant division at the time, compared to say religion, but I find it difficult to believe that it was absolutely non-existent.

"Race" did not exist, though. That is the thing. People didn't divide people into "races" until modernish times.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Broody Guthrie is very correct in saying that the contemporary concept of race that is so prevalent in modern society arose as a necessity for the preservation of the status quo
sorry if my posts come off as gibberish

[fug]

People didn't divide people into "races" until modernish times.
Source? Thanks.

Also Marx was pretty racist.

[Geiseric]

Source? Thanks.

Also Marx was pretty racist.

Marx wasn't racist against blacks or chinese people, he usually said "jews of finance," as a way of expressing capitalism's link to jewish stareoytpes that germans held. Not that I would ever say the same kind of stuff, but Marx was complicated :p

Also for things like this, you don't need sources, the sociological concept of race is widely accepted as true. Racism is very specific though, that's what you have to realize. Rome never had a working class competing for work, neither did any other state untill capitalism came around. Competition for selling ones labor with other nationalities is the pre requisite for racism in the white working class.

Trust me, I know! My parents are in unions, and hate illegal immigrants, and support deporting them, even though they don't even work at the same jobs. They'll say stuff like "They're stealing our social security," and other right wing gibberish that they heard from FOX because at some point down the line one of their friends who worked as a construction worker was replaced by an illegal immigrant. That's how racism works.

[fug]

That's how racism works.
And what happens with that racism when the immigrants in question are for example White Catholics? Look at the UK and its Poles...

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is the materialist/marxist perspective on racism in America?

1. Is racism in america owned to the fact that whites historically speaking have owned the means of production, and when you own the means of production you are paid more. Since whites have owned the means of production they are paid more while minorites are stuck playing by the white mans rules. The fact that whites have owned all the means of production means that there will be less inter-relationships with other minorities since they are held to lower paid jobs thus causing racism?. Is this a proper marxist perspective?
No, I don't see it this way. First what whites have owned the means of production and what have these been? Between colonial times and the plantation economy to tenant farming to industrialization we're talking about a lot of different forces in society and even different kinds of means of production with different relations of production.

I think in the Americas you see racism deliberately constructed from above, by various ruling groups for different reasons at different times (often overlapping). So in the Caribbean, for example, the problem was that black labor became the majority and there were revolts and fear of revolts by the colonial elite. Their answer to their numerical minority was to divide up the population by a kind of strict racial caste with whites, and then several groups of people of mixed heritage taking various social positions and then the black slave at the bottom.

In the US this wasn't the problem and initially black slavery was less favored than indentured and indebted European labor. Two things changed: life expectancy increased in the new world making a more expensive but life-long slave a better long-term deal than a cheaper but time-limited indentured servant. In addition there were some revolts of black and white servants which lead to the implementation of a divide and rule strategy where blacks had rights restricted while labor became racially segregated: laws against black and white people living together or marrying were enacted and servant quarters and even shifts were segregated. Much of this is clearly seen in the laws passed by these local governments after revolts.

As the plantation system became powerful in the US south, the ruling elite needed to convince the poor white farmers (who were obviously in a weaker social position to the plantation owners) to support the system and did this directly like hiring slave-catchers or indirectly just by controlling the black labor force making it seem like the white plantation owner and small farmers had the same interests.

After civil war there was a great deal of advancement both in some short-lived reforms and in action by ex-slaves and abolitionists from below. So part of the former elite's attempts to regain some power depended on regaining control of the black population and figuring out some new system of control and exploitation. Jim-Crow became the vehicle to limit the rights and mobility of the southern black population, tieing them to the land then then imprisoning people with debt.

In the north there was segregation from even before Jim-Crow, but as blacks migrated to industrial jobs in the 20th century, segregation played a part in creating a weaker section of the workforce who would be more willing to work for less or could be used as a pool for scabs during strikes (the unions largely played into this by either blaming black scabs or just being racists which then of course makes it a no-brainier to scab if you are black and poor and normally can't get that kind of job because the racist union heads help the bosses keep you out). So the segregated ghetto became another tool of racist control of black labor and keeping the labor force divided.

Today, it's the prison system which along with the segregated ghetto is the main tool of control for the black population. (Again, constructed from above as seen in things like Nixon's "law and order" rehtoric to the Regan War on Drugs to Clinton's 3-strikes death-penalty acts.) One major difference is that rather than controlling labor directly, it's a system for maintaining or controlling a certain surplus labor in the population. Incarceration or even legal problems basically keep people out of a lot of the workforce and keep folks desperate for any kind of cheap job - at best, hopelessness at worst.

There are, of course, many many different variations and alternate ways that racism is connected to the way this society functions, but I these are the broad strokes IMO and the foundations that allow other forms of discrimination to maintain as well as feed bigoted attitudes and racist ideas which are often the most obvious way we see or experience racism in the real world.


2. Or is racism just a tool used by capitalism to increase capitalist wages by paying less to minorities, which i doubt because if that were true then companies would only be hiring blacks.

Btw im new to marxism although ive been a communist for a much longer time.No, I think that would be a crude way to look at it - and as you said, it doesn't really hold up. I think the common thread throughout the history of anti-black racism in the US is that it's a system of social control by our rulers. Of course this means, since the whole reason our rulers rule us is to keep the profit-machine well-oiled, that ultimately this control is about maintaining the capitalist system as a whole. This sometimes might mean squeezing some extra profits out of people directly, but more often it's about maintaining a kind of society where we all have to go hat in hand to the bosses.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I kind of see what you guys are saying, but I'm still skeptical that there was no marginalization of people because of their skin color back then. Sure, it may not have been the dominant division at the time, compared to say religion, but I find it difficult to believe that it was absolutely non-existent.

People were not really "biologically" categorized before capitalism. People were divided, there were scapegoats and there was chauvinism and antagonisms based on different group categorizations, but it was qualitatively different.

Often people were a marginalized or repressed group simply because of "might makes right". So if Rome or a kingdom in Africa took over your region in battle, then you had to serve them instead of your tribe or your ruler. In Feudal Europe people were divided into a very specific and ridged chain of castes and so if you were low-caste, then the aristocrat could abuse you just coz... say because God wants things to be that way.

With a more capitalist ideology comes a conception of the world without caste and without divinely-chosen social roles. A much more fluid system needed by the new up and coming classes in society. But then if "all men are created equal" but your wealth is still coming from an enslaved group of people, how is this justified? In the US it was biology. Capitalist's justify their rule through "natural law" - we are on top because we have the most merit, capitalism is a "natural system", and hence anyone who is enslaved or oppressed must be there because of some "natural" deficiency in biology or culture.

This is the contradictory nature of early capitalism, at once destroying old systems of control, but needing to create it's own for it's own minority rule of society.

[essmat]

I agree with the above post

[kurr]

You cannot understand racism without understanding colonialism and the concept of primitive accumulation which Marx lays out in Capital. This is an invaluable contribution to the history of ideas, so much that Marx himself didn't fully grasp the magnitude of his discovery.

Racism is merely the ideological justification of colonialism, plain and simple. I say this because amongst the White "Left", I see the term of "anti-White racism" thrown around which - contrary to popular belief - does not exist. White people have never and will never be a colonized nation. And racism in the sense of so-called "anti-racist" activism is a dead end because the ultimate aim is to try to change the way in which White people think.
Colonialism has created a pedestal in which the entire White/Euro-American nation sits above the rest of the worlds population, Marx says that himself in Capital. The wage slavery (and more or less the high wages of White people today) of the White working class came at the expense of the rest of the world that was under slavery proper. Marx notes this as well, despite coming from the perspective of a White European.

It's also worth noting that race itself was also a creation out of the advent of colonialism. I think that may be fairly obvious though.

Two books I would strongly recommend the OP read is Overturning The Culture of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/Overturning-Culture-Violence-Penny-Hess/dp/1891624024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347214401&sr=8-1&keywords=Overturning+the+culture+of+violence) by Penny Hess and Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat (http://www.scribd.com/doc/99458328/Settlers-Mythology-of-the-White-Proletariat) by J. Sakai. The former, I've only read parts of but is fantastic for a historical overview of the White nation. While the latter is quite controversial, dismissed as "third worldist" (which is laughable to anyone who seriously engages it), and has never really been accurately critiqued.


Racism serves a very specific purpose, which is the division of the laboring class along racial lines and prejudices, preempting any present or future movement that may see blacks, whites, latinos/as, asians, and others come together to utilize their collective weight and strength to pressure ruling-class circles into acquiescing on certain demands or to overthrow the reigning class itself.

The idea that "racism" serves as a division only goes so far. The white working class in this country has voluntarily participated in mass killings, hangings, lynchings, vigilantism, signing up as prison guards, and all sorts of other heinous acts committed against Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous. This still goes on to this day. This isn't merely just because of "racism".

The latter section of your post also reeks of multi-national fantasy that in reality pits non-whites under the leadership of a mostly White committee. This is the case for the majority of Marxist parties in this country from the CPUSA to the PSL to the RCP to even the ISO, which as I've understood it, actually purged most of the African membership in DC and parts of the northeast.


racism is "Asian people are bad drivers." or "Black people are lazy." It's centered around skin color.

The former is not racism. It is a stereotype. There is a difference. The latter however is, as it coincides to the original European idea that Africans were stuck in their primitive ways and that the Europeans need to go "civilize" them. Also, to promote the supremacy of the European. That is racism because it was historically used to justify the mass killing and plunder of Africa (as well as Latin America and Asia) at the betterment of the European White nation. Engels in particular acknowledges this later on, for what its worth.

[fug]

White people have never and will never be a colonized nationEver read anything about the history of Germany and Ostkolonisation?


And racism in the sense of so-called "anti-racist" activism is a dead end because the ultimate aim is to try to change the way in which White people think. There's no such thing.


Colonialism has created a pedestal in which the entire White/Euro-American nation sits above the rest of the worlds population Counterpoint: Eastern Europe. 100% White, European and yet doesn't have anything to do with what you said here.

[kurr]

Ever read anything about the history of Germany and Ostkolonisation?

A little. However, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. This thread is about "racism" and it's relation to the United States, as clearly indicated by the title.


There's no such thing.

Except there is. Most Euro-Americans, regardless of class, are quite reactionary. Why do you think there is not general outrage at the conditions of the indigenous in this country? control units and the overall mass incarceration of Africans? the constant police killing of Africans? the mass deportations and vigilantism against so-called "illegals"? I could go on.

Give me a break.


Counterpoint: Eastern Europe. 100% White, European and yet doesn't have anything to do with what you said here.

Once again, you're getting off topic. I put Euro-American in there because it is relevant to the thread at hand. If you're confused by the word "entire", I simply mean that it doesn't matter in terms of class.

[Geiseric]

Anglo americans are racist towards eastern europeans and irish people though, so it isn't as simple as whites vs. blacks. It has to do with nationalities, Anglo whites hate Celtic whites, Celtic whites hate african americans. It has specifically to do with present conditions, because colonialism isn't all that racism has been used to justify or support.

[fug]

Most Euro-Americans, regardless of class, are quite reactionary.But that's true for all Americans regardless of race.






Anglo americans are racist towards eastern europeans and irish people though, so it isn't as simple as whites vs. blacks.
Some are and some aren't. Of course there's xenophobia but in general White Americans probably can't place Poland on a map.

[kurr]

But that's true for all Americans regardless of race.


No it isn't. Aside from the crude remark of "all Americans", Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous haven't been historically complicit and haven't voluntarily brought destruction to other Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous to even remotely the extent that Euro-Americans have. It's a joke to even think of implying that.

I have to wonder how you define reactionary in terms of non-white people.

It's White people (working class and others) in particular who go to Occupy demonstrations or Tea Party rallies in protest of the effects of the so-called recession in this country. They do not raise up slogans about prisons, imperialist wars and interventions, deportations, Africans getting killed every day, the conditions of the "reservations", and so on. No, they want more pie. It's funny considering that as a whole, White people took no where near the sort of blow financially as Black and Latinos did. But lets not talk about..... we're all equally oppressed. :rolleyes:

[fug]

No it isn't. Aside from the crude remark of "all Americans", Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous haven't been historically complicit and haven't voluntarily brought destruction to other Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous to even remotely the extent that Euro-Americans have. It's a joke to even think of implying that.
Yes there are, otherwise America would have a progressive government and a strong progressive movement in general.
Also read about the genocides Indigenous peoples did against other Indigenous in S. America and read about the history of Liberia, not to mention the more recent examples.


I have to wonder how you define reactionary in terms of non-white people.
Revleft says that if you're against homosexuality you are a reactionary. I read that Hispanics in America tend to be conservative, thus "reactionary" in revleft speak.


It's White people (working class and others) in particular who go to Occupy demonstrations or Tea Party rallies in protest of the effects of the so-called recession in this country. They do not raise up slogans about prisons, imperialist wars and interventions, deportations, Africans getting killed every day, the conditions of the "reservations", and so on.
But many whites voted for Obama!:laugh:
Seriously, read about the "race war" in California between Blacks and Hispanics .

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Seriously, read about the "race war" in California between Blacks and Hispanics .

While bigotry between the two groups is a driving factor, one of the reasons for that bigotry (almost certainly the most important) is competition for scarce jobs and resources on the low end of the jobs market. There would not be a conflict between these two groups, or it would not exist in its current form certainly, if economic goods were more accessible to these demographics.

[kurr]

Yes there are, otherwise America would have a progressive government and a strong progressive movement in general.

Your take on American history seems to be devoid of any class analysis so I'll make it simple. The ruling class in the US has never had to make concessions because the Euro-American nation has literally been bought off as I've already explained. A more recent study exemplifies this notion (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2069/housing-bubble-subprime-mortgages-hispanics-blacks-household-wealth-disparity).

When you have a predominant majority of this countries population bought off, the ruling class has never really needed to seriously concede to anyone.

The so-called "progressive government/movement" you speak of is simply reformism. I.E. more pie for some folks then others. If that's something you advocate, you can be restricted on this forum for that. Hell, some White folks could argue and say that the US has been progressive for some people for decades upon decades.


Also read about the genocides Indigenous peoples did against other Indigenous in S. America and read about the history of Liberia, not to mention the more recent examples.

Once again, the same failure to stay on topic.


Revleft says that if you're against homosexuality you are a reactionary. I read that Hispanics in America tend to be conservative, thus "reactionary" in revleft speak.

I personally disagree with that criteria. That said, so-called "Hispanics" could only ever be perceived as "conservative" due to the cultural importance of the family.


But many whites voted for Obama!:laugh:

That's your argument? Seriously? I guess you failed to take into account the eight years of Republican presidency which was pretty unpopular from 2006-on, if not before. Factor in all the false "hope", "change", and promises of the Obama campaign in 2008.

You're just looking pathetic now.

[fug]

When you have a predominant majority of this countries population bought off, the ruling class has never really needed to seriously concede to anyone.
I don't think the "minorities" are that much more revolutionary, even the Panthers are pretty much non existent now.


The so-called "progressive government/movement" you speak of is simply reformism. I.E. more pie for some folks then others. If that's something you advocate, you can be restricted on this forum for that. Hell, some White folks could argue and say that the US has been progressive for some people for decades upon decades.
Of course it's reformism, still it's progressive in general.
Communism in America is weaker than communism in Albania, that says a lot.


I personally disagree with that criteria. That said, so-called "Hispanics" could only ever be perceived as "conservative" due to the cultural importance of the family.
I said according to revleft rules.


That's your argument? Seriously? I guess you failed to take into account the eight years of Republican presidency which was pretty unpopular from 2006-on, if not before. Factor in all the false "hope", "change", and promises of the Obama campaign in 2008.
Note the smiley.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your take on American history seems to be devoid of any class analysis so I'll make it simple. The ruling class in the US has never had to make concessions because the Euro-American nation has literally been bought off as I've already explained. A more recent study exemplifies this notion (http://www.anonym.to/?http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2069/housing-bubble-subprime-mortgages-hispanics-blacks-household-wealth-disparity).

When you have a predominant majority of this countries population bought off, the ruling class has never really needed to seriously concede to anyone.This is an interesting conception of "bought-off" considering your evidence cited shows that white have also lost wealth, just that for blacks and latinos it's gotten much much worse.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/2069-b.png

So please explain how loosing 16% of wealth is a social bribe and being "bough-off".

There's a phrase for that that's popular here in Oakland: "when (white) America has a cold, blacks have the plague". I think that's a much more accurate observation of the modern race and class dynamic in the US than the out-dated "bought-off" worker ideas developed by confused intellectuals and the New Left 40 years ago.

History has shown these arguments to be inadequate. Since the post-war boom, US imperialism faced one major set-back in Vietnam and this actually was at a time of "guns and butter" when a "bought-off" argument made some sense in an impressionistic way. But since US imperialism regained it's footing US power expanded greatly since the 1980s - especially with the end of the cold war - this has not come with increased gains for white workers, it's come at a time of greater attacks on the whole working class. Blacks faced the brunt of this because part of attacking the whole class was to repress radicalism and then reverse the gains from recent past struggles of which black Americans were more in advance than much of the rest of the class: this has meant destroying black communities through "law and order" repression but on this basis the entire domestic neo-liberal project was built and sold.

Fist I think to get things straight, I'm not arguing that whites and blacks; latinos or native workers or immigrant workers; men or women; face the same level of oppression. These wouldn't be specific oppressions by definition if that was the case. So, taking it for granted that within the working class various groups face different specific forms of oppression, what's the answer?

What is the road to black liberation in the us from a "colonial"-view of racism?


Racism is merely the ideological justification of colonialism, plain and simple.This is the origin, but I think the function of racism in the US today is social control (or repression) of specific groups of people in order to maintain the ruling class's position over the whole of society.


I say this because amongst the White "Left", I see the term of "anti-White racism" thrown around which - contrary to popular belief - does not exist.While unfortunately, after 30+ years of retreat in the face of a ruling class offensive of which part is creating a myth of a "Post-racial" or "colorblind" US you do hear some on the Left, including radicals and including members of this website arguing that such things as "black anti-white racism" are "just as much of a problem" or that "men are oppressed too". But I think this is a case of the Left adapting to larger trends in society, rather than a specific problem with the left or an idea which comes out of recent radical left traditions. But at any rate, no argument. I think the significant and roots of racism are systemic in nature, not just animosity for someone towards someone else.


White people have never and will never be a colonized nation.Well that's just not factually correct since there have been groups of white people who've been colonized by capitalists from other European countries as well as oppressed groups of white people. But if we are speaking of the "reverse-racism" claims, then yes, white people are not oppressed for being white in any way in the US.


And racism in the sense of so-called "anti-racist" activism is a dead end because the ultimate aim is to try to change the way in which White people think. I don't know how you categorize "anti-racist" activism or what you think that entails, but personally I see the struggle against oppression as an essential part of the class struggle. I think that "Privilage Theory" and some liberal strategies around oppression do focus more on changing white people's attitudes and minds, but I think these are idealist at best, totally disconnected from actual struggle generally though and, yes, a dead end. Racist attitudes are anchored by systemic racism and so the attitudes will change as a result of actual struggles, so it's the struggles that are the important aspect and I think with the liberation movements in the US past, we see that it was the struggle of the oppressed that then led to wider changes in attitudes among people both within and without that oppressed group, not the other way around.


It's also worth noting that race itself was also a creation out of the advent of colonialism. I think that may be fairly obvious though.It's arguable that Spain developed modern racism in transforming older anti-Jewish policies and attitudes where the distinction was religious to a more modern antisemitism where the distinction was based on "blood" and the religion was more incidental as an excuse for targeting. But in the New World, it can clearly be seen how race was constructed in various places to ensure the ruling class order: designations like creole were created as well as laws and restrictions on black slaves which segregated them from the white servants.


Two books I would strongly recommend the OP read is Overturning The Culture of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/Overturning-Culture-Violence-Penny-Hess/dp/1891624024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347214401&sr=8-1&keywords=Overturning+the+culture+of+violence) by Penny Hess and Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat (http://www.scribd.com/doc/99458328/Settlers-Mythology-of-the-White-Proletariat) by J. Sakai. The former, I've only read parts of but is fantastic for a historical overview of the White nation. While the latter is quite controversial, dismissed as "third worldist" (which is laughable to anyone who seriously engages it), and has never really been accurately critiqued.How is racism in the US today a function of colonialism, not class rule? How are the interests of white settlers who materially benefited from taking Native American lands by being given free land to settle the same interests as white proletarians today who often do adopt racist ideas but this leads to the entire working class loosing social reforms like welfare, public education, and so on. Again the effects are different for a black kid in Detroit than a white suburban kid in Texas, but the overall project from the top is neoliberalism and racism is a tool they use to accomplish this task. Poor white settlers and native Americans had opposing material interests; white workers and black workers, native and immigrant workers have the SAME material interests ultimately, even if they are often pitted against each-other to fight over scraps.

Frankly your argument that being cut-back more, repressed more, but less relative to other groups in society means that white or male workers are "bought-off" is the logic that the Tea-Party uses to pit low-wage workers against unionized public sector workers: they have a pension! Screw those fat-cats who are generally able to pay their mortgage and can go to a doctor when they get sick!

The problem isn't that nurses are "fat-cats" the problem is that the rest of the work-force has been hit harder even though nurses have have been hit too, just to a lesser extent.

When the US has increased profits and gained new imperial heights over the last 30 years and at the same time the whole US working class has seen a decline in wages, benefits, wealth, and power in society and on the job... these old arguments about "bought-off" really have no relation to reality.


The idea that "racism" serves as a division only goes so far.I agree, this is only part of the story and the way you phrase it here makes it seem like racism is mearly an ideological trick. Racism is used in this way, but it's also a structure of direct social control: raids of immigrants to maintain a defenseless and demoralized labor force; mass-incarceration to kick the legs out from under the black working class population.


The white working class in this country has voluntarily participated in mass killings, hangings, lynchings, vigilantism, signing up as prison guards, and all sorts of other heinous acts committed against Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous. This still goes on to this day. This isn't merely just because of "racism". I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Certainty many people buy into ruling class ideas and racism has been the historical Achilles heel of the white working class, weakening the entire class by convincing some of chauvinism and white-supremacy which prevents solidarity and an effective class struggle. But people accepting reactionary ideas or backwards ideas happens all the time and doesn't tell us much about how these ideas function or where they come from in society. In the US, there is pleanty of historical evidence demonstrating that these ractionary ideas, while often adopted by workers or even working class organizations like unions specifically, flow from the top of society. Regan's "War on Drugs" which helped sell the massive attack on working class black communities came at a time when drug-use was declining and national polls said that only a small percentage of the population thought drug-use and drug-crime was a national priority. But a consensus by both parties, backing by the news media, and an organized reorientation of policing in the US helped change things to a point where even in black communities there are a sizable chunk of people who buy into this kind of shit.


This is the case for the majority of Marxist parties in this country from the CPUSA to the PSL to the RCP to even the ISO, which as I've understood it, actually purged most of the African membership in DC and parts of the northeast.OK, well your implication about the ISO lacks any credibility in my view. First off, as I'll explain further below, I don't think any effective organization is going to be a group of white people or males telling people what to do. Second, and on a personal note, I was recruited to the ISO by a black comrade over ten years ago... since he is still in the group, I guess he must have ducked the "racial purge" by hiding out in anonymity as a member of our national organizing committee. Third, really? Honestly if I believed the serious charge you implied about the ISO was true of another group, I wouldn't just say it in passing; so just causally suggesting that the ISO purges black members for being black makes me frankly doubt you even believe it and think that you are just slandering folks to try and make your political argument.



The latter section of your post also reeks of multi-national fantasy that in reality pits non-whites under the leadership of a mostly White committee.I don't see class solidarity as a "multinational" fantasy and I don't think that an effective movement of the class for liberation would look like a bunch of men telling women how to fight sexism or a bunch of whites telling black people how to fight racism. I do think that liberation from specific ethnic or racial or sexual oppression as well as whole-class liberation and worker's power is not possible without class solidarity though. One section of the working class can not liberate itself without the rest - whites can not commonly hold racist ideas if class liberation is to happen, it just wouldn't work -0 they wouldn't be able to develop the necessary consciousness under these conditions and it would leave the strongest tools of capitalist rule intact and ready to suppress the hypothetical white worker movement. Blacks can't liberate themselves from oppression in the US through a national struggle because even the most segregated black "ghetto" is dependent on transportation and industry from the general society. In addition, the marginalization of blacks from the workforce means that there has been a loss of social power for blacks in society even compared to northern blacks in the 1960s. It will take a united struggle to win both liberation from the oppressions of capitalism as well as from the system itself. But if whites or men are organized, they can't just tell people to follow them because of genuine distrust and suspicion due to sexism or racism in society - so this unity has to be forged in practice through struggle - this would produce an organic kind of unity where there wouldn't be "tokenism" of racial or sexual minorities or 2nd class "auxiliary-groups" for women.

A radical working class struggle will have to take on oppression in a serious way both for the sake of liberation from those specific oppressions but also for any hope of class power. So any organic "vanguard" of the class will undoubtedly include the most effective fighters against oppression from oppressed groups. Historically this can be seen in the US from immigrant leaders of workplace struggles as well as against antisemitism or other forms of oppression who became important leaders in the IWW or CP or whatnot to the way that the most effective black revolutionaries from the black power movements began to see that racial oppression is tied to the class system. This doesn't automatically mean that these vanguard leaders in class struggle will be able to coordinate or organize together into one or several "vanguard parties", but I think it does mean that any large revolutionary group in a period of struggle that is "a committee of white people" and isn't organically representative of leading organizers and fighters in all aspects of the class struggle, will be ineffective and doomed.

[Invader Zim]

No racism didn't exist before capitalism. It all started during the colonialization of africa. Racism is to convince white people to go along with low wages, ALMOST as low as black workers.

I think we can agree that racism did not have its conceptual biological underpinnings, but the idea that people did not identify and classify individuals with different skin or from different ethnic groups as 'others', and associate that with negative connotations, is a little misleading - though I would agree that it is of a very different character. Certainly you don't have to go far in medieval Arabic literature to find people classifying and ranking orders of humanity based on the colour of their skin. Similarly, during the medieval people in Europe we see religiously motivated anti-semitism, in particular, blur conceptually and begin to take on a hereditory/ethnic character. But I suppose it depends on what you want to think of as 'capitalism' and how we classify these notions of 'race' and 'otherness'.

But it is an extremely interesting concept which I wish I knew more about, in particular the growth of 'scientific' racism during the industrial revolution. I also think that the "chicken and the egg" issue of rcaism as a justification for imperialism is equally interesting. I recall a few years ago reading a book called The Bible and the Flag, which was all about British protestant missionaries in the 19th century and the link between the desire to "save the heathen" and religion as a "civilising" agent, and how that linked to empire. I'll have to read it again.

[Invader Zim]

The white working class in this country has voluntarily participated in mass killings, hangings, lynchings, vigilantism, signing up as prison guards, and all sorts of other heinous acts committed against Africans, Latinos, and the Indigenous. This still goes on to this day. This isn't merely just because of "racism".

This reminds me of Daniel Goldhegan's book Hitler's Willing Executioners, in which he blamed the holocaust not on Nazi Germany's ruling regime but on German's as a whole. Grouping a majority nations people as being responsible for structural phenomenon imparted from above strikes me as dubious.


White people have never and will never be a colonized nation.

Ireland? Much of Europe under the expansionist Nazi dictatorship?

[kurr]

This reminds me of Daniel Goldhegan's book Hitler's Willing Executioners, in which he blamed the holocaust not on Nazi Germany's ruling regime but on German's as a whole. Grouping a majority nations people as being responsible for structural phenomenon imparted from above strikes me as dubious.

It is Germany's fault as a whole, though. The expression of "good Germans" didn't come out of nothing, you know. Just like it's Euro-Americans fault as a whole for the continuous genocide of the Indigenous, daily police containment and killing of Africans, massive deportations and vigilante killing of so-called "illegals", control units and the ever-growing prison population which are made up majorly on non-Euro-Americans, the list goes on.

I personally don't care that it strikes you as "dubious". Your fantasy of everyone just being duped by the media and the ruling class, having no idea of what is actually going on nor the means to do so is pathetic and further exemplifies the oblivious nature of the white "Left".



Ireland? Much of Europe under the expansionist Nazi dictatorship?

The topic is: Marxist perspective on racism in america.

What is so hard to understand about that?

For what it's worth, as I've already explained, I personally support national liberation in Ireland and they are the only exception. However, Ireland is not as "underdeveloped" as it was decades and decades ago. Ireland is still kept at a level where they are dependent on more "advanced" European countries.

[fug]

Just like it's Euro-Americans fault as a whole for the continuous genocide of the Indigenous, daily police containment and killing of Africans, massive deportations and vigilante killing of so-called "illegals", control units and the ever-growing prison population which are made up majorly on non-Euro-Americans, the list goes on. Oh dog.
Even Stalin made it clear that German people as a whole aren't "guilty" for Nazism.

[cynicles]

None of that is racism though. Mountainous regions such as peru can't develop the same way as say greece because there aren't any oxen or horses. Hot weather makes you tired, that's not racism.

racism is "Asian people are bad drivers." or "Black people are lazy." It's centered around skin color.

Those divisions aren't really racist either, it just describes the region you're from. Romans enslaved jews, germanics, egyptians, other romans, slavs, and celtics all the same way. You cease being bound to that region and now you are a slave owned by rome. Many slaves back then were freed after working or serving in the roman army for long enough, which was the norm untill about the 16th century, regardless of where you were from.

That seems like rather dubious semantics, so is it not racist to say that Arab culture is oriented towards authoritarianism and fundamentalism?

[Invader Zim]

It is Germany's fault as a whole, though.

So, therefore, a child born in 1942 was as much at fault as anybody else living under the regime? I see. You use of the present tense is also interesting, you explicity assume that modern Germans, the vast majority of whom were not even alive during the Second World War, are also at fault. Your argument is both morally and intellectually bankrupt - but then again, the fact that your grasp of class is coloured not by materialism, but the fallicious socially constructed notion of 'race', the fact that you hold a deeply reactionary view of these topics is wholly unsupprising.


Just like it's Euro-Americans fault as a whole for the continuous genocide of the Indigenous, daily police containment and killing of Africans, massive deportations and vigilante killing of so-called "illegals", control units and the ever-growing prison population which are made up majorly on non-Euro-Americans, the list goes on.

So, by the same token, you personally (whom I assume are American), are also at least partially for US policy in Iraq and Afganistan?


Your fantasy of everyone just being duped by the media and the ruling class, having no idea of what is actually going on nor the means to do so is pathetic and further exemplifies the oblivious nature of the white "Left".

So you deny that the Nazis made a conscious and largely successful effort to keep the German people in the dark regarding their genocidal policies? You do realise that even in private Nazi communications and discussions they refused to discuss the Holocaust in candid terms and instead discussed the matter through euphamism? Apparently not, but, then again, what you know about history wouldn't fill a post-it note.


The topic is: Marxist perspective on racism in america.

And exposing your idiotic argument via comaprison is off topic, is it?


For what it's worth, as I've already explained, I personally support national liberation in Ireland and they are the only exception.

Really, and what of Eastern European countries, or is economic imperialism, in addition to expansionist imperialism, beyond your myopic vision of the world? Or are we to believe that the Eastern European Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and many other groups, were not reduced to slave labour and force out of their homes by a colonising Nazi invading force bent on 'Lebenstraum'?

[Geiseric]

I think we can agree that racism did not have its conceptual biological underpinnings, but the idea that people did not identify and classify individuals with different skin or from different ethnic groups as 'others', and associate that with negative connotations, is a little misleading - though I would agree that it is of a very different character. Certainly you don't have to go far in medieval Arabic literature to find people classifying and ranking orders of humanity based on the colour of their skin. Similarly, during the medieval people in Europe we see religiously motivated anti-semitism, in particular, blur conceptually and begin to take on a hereditory/ethnic character. But I suppose it depends on what you want to think of as 'capitalism' and how we classify these notions of 'race' and 'otherness'.

But it is an extremely interesting concept which I wish I knew more about, in particular the growth of 'scientific' racism during the industrial revolution. I also think that the "chicken and the egg" issue of rcaism as a justification for imperialism is equally interesting. I recall a few years ago reading a book called The Bible and the Flag, which was all about British protestant missionaries in the 19th century and the link between the desire to "save the heathen" and religion as a "civilising" agent, and how that linked to empire. I'll have to read it again.

Well they identified them as foreign but they didn't hate them because of where they were from, nor did they consciously alienate people because they were Gallic, Britannic, Persian, or Carthaginian. They were ALL slaves, equally treated like shit.

Gallic slaves weren't pitted against Carthaginian slaves for the purpose of dividing and conquering the slave class. They were all dirt. It depended completely on class and your relation to the roman state as to whether or not you were oppressed or not. If you were conquered, you were a slave, and often mixed in with slaves of other origins.

Seperation is a huge part of racism, and I'm not really sure that Rome separated the slave class based on race, or that it drew any lines, saying "These slaves are better because they're whiter (or more roman looking, i'm not sure what skin color most romans would of had but you get my point) than these slaves." which racism basically comes down to in today's society.

[Invader Zim]

Well they identified them as foreign but they didn't hate them because of where they were from, nor did they consciously alienate people because they were Gallic, Britannic, Persian, or Carthaginian. They were ALL slaves, equally treated like shit.

Gallic slaves weren't pitted against Carthaginian slaves for the purpose of dividing and conquering the slave class. They were all dirt. It depended completely on class and your relation to the roman state as to whether or not you were oppressed or not. If you were conquered, you were a slave, and often mixed in with slaves of other origins.

Seperation is a huge part of racism, and I'm not really sure that Rome separated the slave class based on race, or that it drew any lines, saying "These slaves are better because they're whiter (or more roman looking, i'm not sure what skin color most romans would of had but you get my point) than these slaves." which racism basically comes down to in today's society.

I think you are confusing classical antiquity (which I know literally nothing about) with the the groups and periods which I am (all medieval). And whether or not they 'hated' other groups is not really the issue. Racism is not merely limited to hatred, it also includes notions of superiority. For instance, the 18th century abolitionists plainly did not 'hate' the groups they were attempting to liberate, nevertheless they did hold shockingly (by modern standards) racist and paternalist views of them.

And, as noted, one does not have to trawl through masses of Arabic literature from this period to discover obviously racist sentiments which explicit link skin colour and ethnicity to intellect or cultural development.

[Geiseric]

Well my point is that even during middle ages, the concept of race wasn't even invented. People conflicted over religeon, but that's not racism. It's definately a way the ruling monarchs kept control, however it's different from racism.

The concept of a race is usually limited to skin color, and other visual marks, such as bone structure, and body type. The Hutu in Rwanda were treated as inferior beause they looked less like white people than the Tutsi (Sorry if it's the other way around). That is the first recorded implementation of racism to enforce stratified class relations.

Even in colonial america, blacks and slavic farmers in the north got along for the most part, untill the revolt against governor berkley, where they banded togather to kick him out. This was sparked by indian attacks, which ended up with a genocide, but regardless, this couldn't of happened if they were already racist.

Racism was more important in the south and in industrial centers. It is implemented soley about wages and dividing the working class. They would of had no reason for it in the medieval ages. They were more often than not fighting with other white people, except for the crusades, which were against not Arabs, but Muslims, fueled by religion.

[feather canyons]

It is all superstructual and not worth distraction in my view.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is all superstructual and not worth distraction in my view.No, it is not a "distraction". In the US it's the keystone of the class-order and how the ruling class stays in power.

How are black workers supposed to fight the bosses when they are marginalized from the workforce? How are workers supposed to fight the repressive apparatus of the state when governments use "war on drugs" rhetoric to give cops freaking tanks and prisons enough to hold an entire generation of revolutionaries if they needed to? How are workers in the US going to unite if a chunk of white workers buy into racism?

I guess it may be "super-structural" but that's where most fights are - I can't remember the last movement anywhere that fought over "the base" directly: "hey-hey-ho-ho, alienated labor has got to go" or "M... C... M prime... we charge you with social relation crime!". Generally the class struggle is always over superstructureal parts of the system: fights against cops, governments, over housing, or in the workplace.

[feather canyons]

No, it is not a "distraction". In the US it's the keystone of the class-order and how the ruling class stays in power.

How are black workers supposed to fight the bosses when they are marginalized from the workforce? How are workers supposed to fight the repressive apparatus of the state when governments use "war on drugs" rhetoric to give cops freaking tanks and prisons enough to hold an entire generation of revolutionaries if they needed to? How are workers in the US going to unite if a chunk of white workers buy into racism?

I guess it may be "super-structural" but that's where most fights are - I can't remember the last movement anywhere that fought over "the base" directly: "hey-hey-ho-ho, alienated labor has got to go" or "M... C... M prime... we charge you with social relation crime!". Generally the class struggle is always over superstructureal parts of the system: fights against cops, governments, over housing, or in the workplace.

The problem with fighting on the basis of race, is that it weakens the class movement. Fascists love it when we try to make things racial, because that is the paradigm they wish to view the world in. They can also mobilize racist reactionary movements.

I'm not saying the things you mention aren't all very relevant, but I prefer to understand them in their relationship to class.

My 2c.

[Geiseric]

Racism exists and we have to fight it. Racism exists because the bourgeoisie created it about 400 years ago as a way of making white workers not hate them, and redirecting anger towards capitalism at minorities.

It doesn't "Weaken the class movement." If anything not fighting racism weakens the class movement, because the most oppressed in the working class are being pitted against the white workers, and same for vice versa. Racism may not be a big deal for white workers, so by your basic logic white workers should ignore the problems of minorities because the white working class needs to organize for the betterment of the white working class, and nobody else. But the struggle against racism is inseperable from the struggle against capitalism, since capitalism cannot exist without racism.

[feather canyons]

Racism exists and we have to fight it. Racism exists because the bourgeoisie created it about 400 years ago as a way of making white workers not hate them, and redirecting anger towards capitalism at minorities.

It doesn't "Weaken the class movement." If anything not fighting racism weakens the class movement, because the most oppressed in the working class are being pitted against the white workers, and same for vice versa. Racism may not be a big deal for white workers, so by your basic logic white workers should ignore the problems of minorities because the white working class needs to organize for the betterment of the white working class, and nobody else. But the struggle against racism is inseperable from the struggle against capitalism, since capitalism cannot exist without racism.

If anti-racist groups just stopped fighting racism and did nothing, then yes, of course that would weaken the class movement. But if they put their energies into anti-classism instead, it would surely be a boost to the class movement? Probable a fatal one to the bourgeois, in my view.

I'm not trying to suggest that racism needs to be overlooked, (or any of the other ism's ). But the bourgeois just LOVE it that the laboring class is split into all these stratified movements with different focuses. In fact, that is exactly how they delay our revolution.

Max Weber did the Bourgeois a huge favor by conceptualizing proletarians as disunited.

Really, class consciousness has failed to take hold because peoples concerns are too diffuse. I don't see how that isn't obvious.

[Geiseric]

Anti classism and anti racism are hand in hand though. There is no separation, whatsoever. Black workers even demand things that white workers are afraid to demand.

As a white communist, it will be impossible for a revolution to work unless we have all races working together against capitalism. Proletarians are disunited, and we as communists need to fix that, before a revolution can happen at all.

[feather canyons]

Materially, anti-classism and anti-racism are united, yes that I would absolutely agree with. But a lot of proletarians inhabit a false consciousness. They identify their problems as being something else besides capitalism. Or in many cases, nothing to do with capitalism at all. That's fine, as them fighting their issues helps too, but for my part I will try to get them to be class more conscious.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem with fighting on the basis of race, is that it weakens the class movement. Fascists love it when we try to make things racial, because that is the paradigm they wish to view the world in. They can also mobilize racist reactionary movements.We (radicals) "don't make things racial" nor do black people or south asians or latinos or non-ruling whites. Things are racial in the US and our labor is divided within the class along racial or sexual lines often which makes this an essential issue within the class movement.

Of course fascists can see things in terms of race, but that's because they seek to re-inforce or expand the existing racial system for the purpose of a more stable society from their perspective. They also want to bolster the military and police often - should we not address these issues as it would play into fascist arguments? No, we oppose these institutions for the same reasons they support and want to strengthen these structures: because these are tools of our rulers to maintain a certain kind of order in society - one where we work and they reap. Institutional racism in the US is one of their most effective tools and racism and nationalism have derailed past left-populist and working class movements in the US, prevented strikes by dividing the workforce, pit workers against other workers etc.

And in simplist terms, fighting oppression is part of the basic truism of workers: an injury to one is an injury to all. Where one part of the class is attacked an weak, the rest will be next or at least more easily attacked later. Austerity hit blacks in the US first, it followed for the rest of the class after the ideological justifications (based often on racist arguments) of the war on drugs and getting rid of welfare and cutting "entitlements" were established. Domestic spying and elimination of normal bourgois legal rights hit Arabs and Muslims in the US first, and now can be extended to anyone. SWAT teams were justified by rehtoric of "Jungle-like" inner-cities where people were "too sociopathic" to respond to anything less than a militarized force... well what militarized forced de-camped Occupy last year?


I'm not saying the things you mention aren't all very relevant, but I prefer to understand them in their relationship to class.


Well this is what I was attempting to explain here:

How are black workers supposed to fight the bosses when they are marginalized from the workforce? How are workers supposed to fight the repressive apparatus of the state when governments use "war on drugs" rhetoric to give cops freaking tanks and prisons enough to hold an entire generation of revolutionaries if they needed to? How are workers in the US going to unite if a chunk of white workers buy into racism?

[2up2down2furious]

Concerning the "false consciousness" trope, I think a better way to conceptualize white racism would be with the idea of "double consciousness" (which come from the Sojourner Truth Organization's synthesis of Du Bois and Gramsci). In other words, white workers get a very real advantage from whiteness-- including access the best jobs, access to better homes, better access to education, relative leniency from police, etc.-- and may (more or less rightly) perceive their short-term interests to linked to whiteness. Consequently, there is a material basis for a cross-class alliance between the white working class and the white ruling class.

It is up to communists to demonstrate that white workers have a long-term interest which concurrent with Black workers. Of course racism is a superstructural phenomenon, but it has material roots, and because the US proletariat is majority-white, the only way to foment a revolutionary movement is to break the cross-class alliance by developing a tendency within the white working class that embraces Communism and rejects whiteness. Sure, consciousness springs from material conditions, but subjective factors can also affect material conditions and thereby change the basis for consciousness. In the United States, understanding this dialectical relationship is a prerequisite for Communist work.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Concerning the "false consciousness" trope, I think a better way to conceptualize white racism would be with the idea of "double consciousness" (which come from the Sojourner Truth Organization's synthesis of Du Bois and Gramsci). In other words, white workers get a very real advantage from whiteness-- including access the best jobs, access to better homes, better access to education, relative leniency from police, etc.-- and may (more or less rightly) perceive their short-term interests to linked to whiteness. Consequently, there is a material basis for a cross-class alliance between the white working class and the white ruling class.

It is up to communists to demonstrate that white workers have a long-term interest which concurrent with Black workers. Of course racism is a superstructural phenomenon, but it has material roots, and because the US proletariat is majority-white, the only way to foment a revolutionary movement is to break the cross-class alliance by developing a tendency within the white working class that embraces Communism and rejects whiteness. Sure, consciousness springs from material conditions, but subjective factors can also affect material conditions and thereby change the basis for consciousness. In the United States, understanding this dialectical relationship is a prerequisite for Communist work.

While I agree that the aspects of society you describe above are totally correct, I do think "false consiousness" is the best way to describe the situation. It's true that whites tend to hold the higher positions, the same with males compared to females, but is this a sort of "bribe" as some marxists and privilage theoriests believe? I think this is a confusing way to put it (and I don't know if that's what you were arguing, so I may be making a more general point here) because it's not like the ruling class invented these jobs for the purpose of giving some white people a higer place in the labor structure. These jobs need to be done by someone for capitalism, so I think it's much clearer to say that blacks, women, immigrants or Latinos and many other groups face specific targeted forms of oppression.

This is not to downplay the existance of racist or oppressive ideas and attitudes among male or white workers, but just that the "benifits" they have are mostly "mental" or percieved (like how some workers might actually believe that when business gets tax-breaks workers benifit contrary to any real effect in society, or the way workers support Imperialism for the "pride" of being in a powerful country). In reality what it becomes is fighting for scraps, which is inherently self-defeating.

But overall I think you are totally correct that in the long-run non-oppressed workers are directly impacted negativly by the oppression of other groups of workers by our rulers: pushing down women's wages pushes down the wages of the entire working class when most married couples both have to work or when families are headed by a working mother only; restrictions on immigrants or religious minorities lead to the generalization of those restrictive techniques; the attack on black communities after the 1970s came in the form of the neoliberalism that is now impacting the entire US working class, etc. And of course these oppressions of groups of workers and attitudes among workers that support oppression are inherently divisive and prevent an effective fight-back.