Capitalis and racism/sexism

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Malcolm X said once that "you can't have capitalism without racism". I saw the same idea here on this forum regarding racism and sexism.

I don't necessarily understand why it is so. Is it because capitalism is not geared towards social change, while socialism is? That is to say, capitalism provides no interest or clear-cut mechanism to change racial or gender oppression? But what about direct struggle against oppression then, which resulted in some reduction in racism and sexism throughout the years?

I don't understand whether there is something more to that position than I already know, so I would appreciate if you could help me out.

P.S. Rosa Partizan, I expect a great answer from you.

[Rafiq]

Racism is one of the most powerful means by which class consciousness is hindered, by which universality is understood in terms of racial divisions. To add, racism is necessary especially today in establishing marginal, 'other' groups.

[redguarddude]

Sorry for posting in wrong place, but I need to contact an administrator. The site is not helpful on how to do this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Sorry for posting in wrong place, but I need to contact an administrator. The site is not helpful on how to do this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I've sent you a message instructing you on one way you can do this.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Racism is one of the most powerful means by which class consciousness is hindered, by which universality is understood in terms of racial divisions. To add, racism is necessary especially today in establishing marginal, 'other' groups.

So you are saying that racism (and sexism) is in the interest of the capitalist class, hence, capitalism without racism (and sexism) can't exist, is that correct? But through which mechanism capitalists promote racism (and sexism)? It seems rather far away from Marxist analysis for me, for which I am pretty much looking here.

Furthermore, my problem is that minimum wage (or other economically progressive things) is also not in the interest of the capitalists and yet we have it, because the working classes have won it through bitter struggle. Why can't we have the same with racism/sexism?

[Rosa Partizan]

So you are saying that racism (and sexism) is in the interest of the capitalist class, hence, capitalism without racism (and sexism) can't exist, is that correct? But through which mechanism capitalists promote racism (and sexism)? It seems rather far away from Marxist analysis for me, for which I am pretty much looking here.

Furthermore, my problem is that minimum wage (or other economically progressive things) is also not in the interest of the capitalists and yet we have it, because the working classes have won it through bitter struggle. Why can't we have the same with racism/sexism?

minimum wage is a total bagatelle for the rich ones, for the CEOs and so on. They still get the bulk of revenues and at the same time keep the working class at bay 'cause they can say "but look, you get some pretty fair salary". Paying minimum wage is the least problem for them. Some coiffeur chain here was forced to introduce minimum wage and they just raised the prices for a haircut, they were like, otherwise it isn't possible, forgetting to add "that our executive suite still makes a ton of money". However, having no sexism and racism would make some economy branches literally collapse. Imagine no porn, no prostitution (with these two, sexism and racism often go hand in hand --> human trafficking, "ebony babe gangbanged" and a ton more), no beauty industry (also here you can see racism, whitening creams, cosmetic surgery to look European etc). Only these three by themselves make a group of people earn many, many billions of dollars, and they are connected to movie, music industry and so on. Then, look at the gun industry in the US. How many people own guns due to racist prejudices or minorities owning guns because they live in fear of these people? You could write whole essays on that. I'm just too lazy and not elaborate enough.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you are saying that racism (and sexism) is in the interest of the capitalist class, hence, capitalism without racism (and sexism) can't exist, is that correct? But through which mechanism capitalists promote racism (and sexism)? It seems rather far away from Marxist analysis for me, for which I am pretty much looking here.the general idea behind this reasoning is that small ruling groups can't maintain their rule over larger groups that they exploit t without some array of mechanisms to do this. If you are a lord who benefits from peasants being tied to your land, then you'll, for example, probably want to promote both the direct repressive mechanisms to ensure this good deal remains, but also probably the ideology which helps convince everyone that God wants some people to farm all the time and others to reap the wealth. So you'll probably build some really big churches that are really awesome so that people God, i guess that idea that god says this guy should rule us and that this is just the way society has to be is correct... I mean why'd anyone want to build such a thing if it weren't real?

Dividing to rule the numerically larger group is one of the most common and effective ways ruling classes can break apart the large exploited group into smaller, divided, and more easily ruled bits.

In specific societies you can't have capitalism without racism (the u.s. And the americas in general... Increasingly in europe, most former colonial areas... So, a lot of places). But in some places oppression is different or race isn't one of the main or primary ways of diving people. (Sexism is pretty generalized though for various reasons that i can't do justice to briefly in this post). So i think a general way to put it is that capitalism needs social oppression to maintain economic exploitation. Capitalist exploitation requires people to be controlled... Sexism and racism are two ways to socially control people.

To talk crudely about gender oppression. Capital, needs to keep workers physically reproducing themselves, so it promotes archaic prejudices from feudalism about women when that is useful to them, it invents new ideas about when also when it suits them. So it develops both practical and ideological ways to convince people that the best way to exist and survive is through women taking care of social needs. To ensure that if some women decide working at home for free and being the property of your husband is kinda a fucked up arrangement, then more direct ideas and ways of controlling women (i.e. Sexism) come into play. It divides men against women in order to help maintain general control over society.

To again crudely look at a couple of early and kinda fundamental racial oppressions just in the u.s., you can see that it's all connected things that benefit maintaining the ruling order of society. In a colonial-settler society: developing practical means of native americans having less legal status as well as developing ideas about native americans being inferior and violent benefits rulers of a society where increasing land (so controlling and removing native populations) is the main way they can increase their wealth. In the early industrial u.s. North-east, it benefited rulers of a society where the increasingly best way to increase wealth and power was controlling a large pool of low wage laborers, for irish and Chinese immigrants initially (followed by many, many other groups) to be controlled and managed in their mobility and social status and to play this group off of other labor pools (and visa-versa) in wage competition. Anti black racism in the us has also always been about control although the nature and motivation for that control has been different in different eras. In the neoliberal era, capitalism has been able to push back against past reforms and to increase competition among workers in order to make us more desperate and playable and cheap. The economic and political marginalization of black people, the racial system of legal repression and mass control on the streets poor black neighborhoods has physically increased the overall repressive capacity of the us state and ruling class, the ideological ramifications have helped sell the population on the need for a state capable of having city police that have drones, tanks, military style tactics and training, and can clear out a neighborhood or an occupy camp, a strike, whatever. The ideological aspect has also helped sell the general idea that some people need to be controlled, that social programs and reforms are a waste and that the poor deserve it. The direct repression of the legal system helps maintain a large pool of desperate people who have no legal rights. In economic terms it creates a permenanet labor reserve that helps drive down wages. The racism of the "justice" system probably disenfranchises legal rights more than jim-crow. In addition to the direct repressive control over people, ideologically, the prison system is like the feudal cathedral for the u.s.: it also helps convince black and white people that their order must be right (i guess we are dangerous and need to be controlled) because why would capitalist build such an expensive thing if it wasn't necessary and true?

[Црвена]

I think capitalism could maybe exist without racism/sexism in particular, but the capitalists would find something else to discriminate on the basis of. One of the characteristics of a "survival of the fittest," society is that imaginary factors of determining "the fittest," are created to limit who gets to the top. If we didn't discriminate based on race and sex, we would discriminate based on earlobe shape and distance between toes or something else that's idiotic but that the capitalist propagandists would trick people into making sense of.