What's a genuine Marxist take on the growing racial tensions in the United States?

[Jacob Cliff]

I am by no means a racist, in fact, the concept of race is rather silly, but I don't necessarily understand how the murder of Michael Brown or many of the other young men has to do with "racism." There are plenty of murders of all "races," but I'm not understanding how the shooters of these men were racists. Murderers, perhaps, but what of racism?

This isn't meant to provoke/be a loaded question; I genuinely am not in full understanding of this topic. But it seems to me that the notion of capitalism as a "system of racism" is a bit ridiculous. If someone can explain why capitalism perpetuates racism, that would be much appreciated.
Thanks.

[#FF0000]

This is a huge topic. I'll write a bit about it tomorrow. Would recommended reading be good?

[Jacob Cliff]

Certainly, thank you.

[Rafiq]

There are no "growing racial tensions" in the sense that such tensions regard the white, and black identity respectively (i.e. equally). Rather, the peoples of the ghettos, capitalism's waste pits, grow politically conscious of their plight at the hands of police terrorism and institutionalized racism. Such events must be conceived in terms of the vast sums of marginal and excluded masses, the precariat, the permanently unemployed and so on. The lumpenproletariat in the early 20th century consisted of those caught between the intricacies of rural society and urbanization, while those otherwise deemed as "lumpen" in the 21st century, the slum dwellers of the world who have become excluded even from what is now the 'privilege' to be directly exploited (not to say the exploitation is not present), have entered alongside the global traditional proletariat as those whom have nothing to lose but their chains. Many may not, in large, constitute a part of the proletariat (in the traditional sense), but they are most definitely predisposed to Communism, as fundamentally being without private property. Remember, the significance of the proletariat has always politically been negative significance - not the exaltation of being proletarian, but demanding its abolition, i.e. of having nothing to lose but your chains. This is what sustained Communism.

As far as racial tensions in general go, they have always existed. They exist in large part to divert the anger of the white working people and in doing so allow the various social services, labor rights that their forefathers had so brazenly fought for to be taken away from them. Whether it's against the blacks of the ghettos or "lazy unions" (many proletarians were outraged by how the minimum wage was raised to fifteen dollars, as though they themselves are paying for it), all of this does not directly concern blacks or unions, but they themselves. I have experienced this firsthand: the white working class in the United States is largely and most definitely predisposed to racism, but as always a different kind of racism. They'll project their own anger and frustration onto some kind of unknowable other rather than their bosses, i.e. black unemployed welfare recipients, and so on.

While it is not a direct conspiracy by the media or the organs of state power to consciously perpetuate such racism, they do it anyway as fundamentally constituting a part of the wider capitalist totality - i.e. even something like political correctness sustains this racism, because it ALLOWS in another language for racism to actively persist. Those in power fear to death the possibility of the marginalized blacks of the ghettos and the white working masses to conjoin their common struggle into a single political discourse and language.

So to summarize: Racism is something unique to capitalism insofar as it is necessary to divide the working people on national lines. Racism is built into the foundation of capitalism insofar as it concerns the project of the nation-state and the unanimous national conformity to capital. It is solely, without question something that solely regards the proletariat.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

For recommended reading:

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
Settlers by J Sakai
Black Power by Kwame Ture (aka Stokely)
This Half Has Never Been Told by Edward Baptist
Medical Apartheid by Harriet A Washington
War Against the Weak by Edwin Black

In short, in Amerika capitalism perpetuates racism because the white working class is "bought off" using scraps gained from the hyper-exploitation of oppressed colonial nations within the U.S. and in the Third World so as to continue the general exploitation of the entire working class in the service of the empire. Just because Obama is president doesn't mean this phenomenon has ended, it's called neocolonialism. There have been many black leaders utilized to govern their own population in the ultimate service of white supremacist capitalist civilization. Those "minority" community leaders that prompt colonial people to prove their loyalty to the colonizer, to get rights within its system after showing dedication, and to remain within the realm of "respectable" political mobilization are playing the role of neocolonial leadership. Neocolonialism is their function when such leaders are active within the black nation in this country and in other countries.

[Mr. Piccolo]

So to summarize: Racism is something unique to capitalism insofar as it is necessary to divide the working people on national lines. Racism is built into the foundation of capitalism insofar as it concerns the project of the nation-state and the unanimous national conformity to capital. It is solely, without question something that solely regards the proletariat.

I agree with almost everything you wrote, but I am not sure how integral racism is to capitalism. I think one could make a decent argument that modern capitalism is, at one level, moving away from racism as a legitimizing ideology.

For example, why do liberals support anti-racist policies such as affirmative action? The answer, I believe, is that it is part of pursuing a form of capitalism based on the ideology of meritocracy. You cannot really claim that capitalism is a meritocracy while supporting Jim Crow laws or severe forms of de facto discrimination. Official racism as a justification for capitalism is practically dead in much of the West. As racist as the Republicans are they cannot be openly racist because they also support the modern meritocratic theory of capitalism.

Noam Chomsky made a good point when he wrote:


See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that’s produced—that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance. John Schoeffel (ed.), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New Press, 2002), p. 176.

I am not denying that racism still acts as an effective prop for capitalism. Its just that its relative importance has decreased. I believe that an anti-racist capitalism is theoretically possible, just like a pro-LGBT or pro-feminist capitalism is also possible.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I feel I should give syndicalist blogger Michael Acuña credit for the theory above. He pretty much introduced me to the theory of anti-discrimination as a capitalist ideological tool.

I obtain my Chomsky quote from Acuñ's excellent blog piece debunking the conservative conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism.

See: https://commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/

[BIXX]

God damn

Is it not obvious that the murders were fueled by systematic violence against blacks? Calling the cops on kids cause they're 'thugs', assuming the skittles in their hands are pistols because they're wearing a hoodie, the massive amount of police violence towards black youth as opposed to white youth, the origins of police institutions in slave catching... How can the violence against black youth that is so heavily disproportionate not be seen as racist?

Furthermore, even if the cops weren't racist and they were equal opportunity murderers (or even if they performed their jobs 100% nicely and just protected the law to the t) the police need to be destroyed.

[Mr. Piccolo]

God damn

Is it not obvious that the murders were fueled by systematic violence against blacks? Calling the cops on kids cause they're 'thugs', assuming the skittles in their hands are pistols because they're wearing a hoodie, the massive amount of police violence towards black youth as opposed to white youth, the origins of police institutions in slave catching... How can the violence against black youth that is so heavily disproportionate not be seen as racist?

Furthermore, even if the cops weren't racist and they were equal opportunity murderers (or even if they performed their jobs 100% nicely and just protected the law to the t) the police need to be destroyed.

Yes, as a white male I can honestly say it is much easier to deal with the police. They are much, much more likely to trust you and not be suspicious of your actions.

Law enforcement and the justice system are the most racist institutions in the United States. All you have to do is go to a courtroom in a white, affluent area and one in a poor minority area and see how the defendants are treated differently for the same crimes.

It is wild how easy it is to get a slap on the wrist if you are white and have some money. Not only can you afford a good lawyer, but the judges and prosecutors are easier on you.

I know a white guy from a affluent family (they own a catering company). This guy is always in trouble for DUI, drug violations, public disturbance, etc. He has never been to prison. If he was a poor black guy he would have been sent to prison at least once by now.

[G4b3n]

Was going to give an analysis but Rafiq was pretty spot on. So, what he said.

[Rafiq]

I am not denying that racism still acts as an effective prop for capitalism. Its just that its relative importance has decreased. I believe that an anti-racist capitalism is theoretically possible, just like a pro-LGBT or pro-feminist capitalism is also possible.

And this is precisely what encapsulates the rabid opposition to pseudo-leftists like Chomsky, because those leftists who are incapable of partaking in a general critique of ideology get caught mistaking appearances from their actual function. It is true that the direct appearance of racism has disappeared. But those instances of racism that are overt, that are at face value, is like the tearing of a mask covering the face of a monster who cannot help but reveal himself every so often. That is to say, racism as an official ideological narrative for racial injustice has been decimated by political correctness, but that does not revoke its institutional character. In fact, the reality that capitalism requires interchangeable cogs is not something new to postmodern society, though the particular form it has taken as a result of our de-industrialized consumer societies may be: the fact of the matter is that the contradiction between the necessity of capital to be racially blind, and the necessity for workers to be racially predisposed, is solely the antagonism that sustains racism. As capitalism requires peoples of all races to be "equally" as interchangeable cogs, the point of Communist anti-racism is recognizing this consciously, i.e. that the exploitation by capital is racially blind and does not regard race, that all men are bound together only by their chains.

But insofar as the proletariat remains the proletariat, racism, nationalism is necessary, whether individual capitalists are conscious of it or not, as a means for them to divert and express their frustrations in a way that is devoid of historic self-consciousness. For example, they are perfectly conscious that pro-immigration laws will in the short term hurt labor, and drive wages down - how could racism NOT be a consequence of this (and anti-immigration sentiment just plays into their hands, in this way)? The way ideology is reproduced is not by consciously planning this or that to infect the minds of the masses, but largely a process of natural selection wherein that which is able to remain popular, ideologically approximate reality in a way that most directly relates to peoples conditions of existence, and so on, lives on. Meaning if there was no racism, capitalism would simply not survive. Of course FORMALLY capitalism wants to be anti-racist, pro-feminist and so on in the 21st century, just as it formally is predisposed to civic democracy and equal rights for all, but if capitalism was constituted by the narrative that reproduces its existence, it would not be a society composed of social antagonism. Liberal anti-racism reproduces the conditions of racism insofar as it both provides a false alternative to racism (which obviously does not relate to people on an everyday basis) as well as ignoring the fundamental basis of it. For example, liberals will support affirmative action, and they might have the best intentions, but even construing the basis or racism in its inevitable effects, like not having equal opportunities or "discrimination", they allow for it to be reproduced.

For liberals, racism isn't something which is continually reproduced by capitalism, but something "of the past" which is still strong today - i.e. they construe racism as residue, and nothing more - even if they will recognize racism is still prominent, they will only recognize it as prominent insofar as people can't "get over past differences" and so on. This is how political correctness sustains racism, because it obfuscates its origins and thereby disallows people to approach it for what it is.

I'm even inclined to say that racism doesn't even have to have its origins in any kind of deliberate ruling class prejudice, but - like antisemitism, something that develops spontaneously as a result of the working masses falsely grounding their ills onto something which doesn't directly violate their "common sense" (i.e. ruling ideas), insofar as it creates an enemy that allows them not to offend their masters, the capitalists. Now for certain, the ruling classes and the petite bourgeoisie will take advantage of this, even propagate it, but contrary to what the Chomskyans think it is irreducible to "direct" forms of misinformation - for the Chomskyans, ruling ideology is only its appearance, significant only insofar as it mis-represents "objective facts" and so on. This is wholly erroneous. The precise problem with vulgarists like Chomsky is that they are incapable of observing capitalism insofar as it constitutes a definite totality, not some kind of abstracted dominance that "rules over" men, whom are still able to be outside of its influence in various different ways. As a bourgeois ideologue, this is exactly why he'll conjure up drivel like talking about some kind of innate "instinct for freedom" that humans have, unable to realize that capitalism itself generates a standard of freedom which its immediate mechanisms cannot fulfill - thus making Communism possible.

[Tim Redd]

the fact of the matter is that the contradiction between the necessity of capital to be racially blind...As capitalism requires peoples of all races to be "equally" as interchangeable cogs, the point of Communist anti-racism is recognizing this consciously, i.e. that the exploitation by capital is racially blind and does not regard race, that all men are bound together only by their chains.

A study of US history shows that Capital has benefited from racial division. It uses racism to extract super-profits; profits beyond what would ordinarily be expected in a non racist capital/labor relationship. And capital has not only benefited from racism against blacks, but against the Chinese and Chicano peoples as well. In terms of super profits, capital also achieves it with regards to sexism against women and from 3rd world peoples due its global colonial empire. Of course capital can exploit and make profits without racism, but if can also manipulate racism to make super profits.


and the necessity for workers to be racially predisposed, is solely the antagonism that sustains racism.
..But,insofar as the proletariat remains the proletariat, racism, nationalism is necessary, whether individual capitalists are conscious of it or not as a means for them to divert and express their frustrations in a way that is devoid of historic self-consciousness.This is the first time I've ever seen the claim in Marxist or non-Marxist theory that "insofar as the proletariat remains the proletariat, racism, nationalism is necessary, whether individual capitalists are conscious of it or not". And I disagree with it. There are numerous examples in world history where multiple proletarian racial groups have worked together, lived together, or were in a some relationship to one another and only, or predominantly a racist state of affairs existed between them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with almost everything you wrote, but I am not sure how integral racism is to capitalism.I'd say that oppression is integral to capitalism but racism is central to American Capitalism and has become increasingly imporatant in other countries with large heterogeneous labor pools and has been fundamental to imperialism.

The difference between now and other times in the US or other industrial countries where racism is a big part of how capitalist society reproduces/maintains itself is not so much decline or increase, but different functions at different times for different social conditions.

Like Alexander argues in "The New Jim Crow" the main constant in anti-black racism in the US is not the form of it or the attitudes associated with it (this changes, at some points blacks are seen as hard working and passive, other times "lazy" and unruly) but that US racism is a system of control. Since class societies need to control the populations, this particular form has been built-into US capitalism.


For example, why do liberals support anti-racist policies such as affirmative action? The answer, I believe, is that it is part of pursuing a form of capitalism based on the ideology of meritocracy.I don't know about this. One of the main arguments against affirmative action (often made by liberals) is that in a "color-blind" society it goes against meritocracy to have affirmative action. Modern liberals tend to favor affirmative action only to the extent of creating "diversity".


Official racism as a justification for capitalism is practically dead in much of the West. As racist as the Republicans are they cannot be openly racist because they also support the modern meritocratic theory of capitalism. I don't think racism was ever used as a justification for capitalism, rather - sometimes - as a justification for inequality competition within capitalism. And people who support racism in the broad sense of supporting the continuation of racial oppression (as opposed to Racists of the KKK sort) certainly do see racism and meritocracy as being one and the same. "Why are working class schools failing?Because black students don't want to learn and black parents are bad at parenting (this is argued by centrists like Obama). Why are black people in prison or under-employed? Because they just don't want to go to school and work for success."


I am not denying that racism still acts as an effective prop for capitalism. Its just that its relative importance has decreased. I believe that an anti-racist capitalism is theoretically possible, just like a pro-LGBT or pro-feminist capitalism is also possible.I think the justifications, come after the fact of the deeds. Capitalism theoretically doesn't need any specific form of oppression, but in order to exploit is also needs to oppress the large exploited majority. To justify this oppression the victims need to be blamed and the larger exploited group needs to be broken into hostile competing bits.

[BIXX]

I am not denying that racism still acts as an effective prop for capitalism. Its just that its relative importance has decreased. I believe that an anti-racist capitalism is theoretically possible, just like a pro-LGBT or pro-feminist capitalism is also possible.

There is no such possible thing as pro-queer capital. It cannot happen. Same with the anti-racist and pro-feminist.

Capital (and civ in general) relies on the control of human production and reproduction, and without a dominating control over women, queers, racial minorities, this is not possible. All of these groups must be harmed to make sure capital continues to exist.

[Bala Perdida]

I'm not sure if someone already said this, but the whole 'racial tensions' thing that the US is apparently going through isn't anymore real than it ever was. It's just a media hype intended to make it look like all black people against all white people. The media turned to this after they weren't able to discredit the uprisings that started in August of last year.

[Rafiq]

There are numerous examples in world history where multiple proletarian racial groups have worked together, lived together, or were in a some relationship to one another and only, or predominantly a racist state of affairs existed between them.

Being a proletarian constitutes exploitation. So to REMAIN a proletarian is like to remain a slave. Slaves might have worked together to overthrow their masters, but as long as they remain slaves, they are subservient (or in the process of breaking their chains).

When proletarians work together on a trans-"racial" level, this is because they fight against the proletarian condition properly.

[consuming negativity]

I am by no means a racist, in fact, the concept of race is rather silly, but I don't necessarily understand how the murder of Michael Brown or many of the other young men has to do with "racism." There are plenty of murders of all "races," but I'm not understanding how the shooters of these men were racists. Murderers, perhaps, but what of racism?

This isn't meant to provoke/be a loaded question; I genuinely am not in full understanding of this topic. But it seems to me that the notion of capitalism as a "system of racism" is a bit ridiculous. If someone can explain why capitalism perpetuates racism, that would be much appreciated.
Thanks.

when white and black americans are shown pictures of white and black people and asked to judge their emotions, both white and black people consistently (mis-judge) black persons as having negative emotions and especially as being more angry or threatening

when white and black children are given dolls of white and black children, they both tend to choose the white dolls and they consider the black dolls "bad"

when black people are forced to identify themselves as black before taking tests, they do on average 2 letter grades worse as a group than those who were not primed

everything about our society continually tells us that white is "normal" and black is "different", that black people are bad, and that they are to be feared and kept away from the rest of us. it is internalized by everybody, not just white people, not just klansmen, but ostensible non-racists including everybody on this board. all of us are, to some degree or another, subconsciously racist and there's fuck all we can do about it other than try to be aware of it and fight against it

if you want to know why those cops shot those dudes, i think they genuinely thought that they had a valid reason to be suspicious, even though their suspicions were completely on a subconscious level that they would never think were actually because they had internalized racism since before they were too old to go to school

not all racism is overt and admitted - now, racism is underground and we all pretend it doesn't exist while it festers and grows behind the duplicitous reassurances of "totally not racist" people who are actually just unaware of how many prejudices they actually hold because they think of them as completely normal "differences" no different than the melanin content of the skin itself

[renalenin]

Great thread. This was discussed by Cornel West in an interview last night here in Australia. His comments were excellent as one would expect. Among other things Dr West pointed out that the violence in Baltimore and the violence in Ferguson was all central to the class basis of capitalist society but in one place the violence was done by white cops and in the other it was done by non-white cops. But the victims are always the same and the back story of slavery and jim crow is highly significant as it extends from European colonial mentalities. It is not too different for Aboriginal Australians, another point agreed by Dr West in the interview.

It was on the NITV Awaken program, Tuesday June 9th.
http://www.nitv.org.au/fx-story.cfm?sid=68ED6B18-B7C4-C5CE-6BBE26A1BB4510CB


:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Mr. Piccolo]

There is no such possible thing as pro-queer capital. It cannot happen. Same with the anti-racist and pro-feminist.

Capital (and civ in general) relies on the control of human production and reproduction, and without a dominating control over women, queers, racial minorities, this is not possible. All of these groups must be harmed to make sure capital continues to exist.

I am not sure I agree. Certainly capital harms all of these groups as workers. But there is no reason why capital must oppress these groups for other characteristics.

There is no reason that capital must be racist, or sexist, or anti-gay in order to continue to exist. If anything, capital has an incentive to oppose obvious discrimination in order to create a facade of meritocracy.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I'd say that oppression is integral to capitalism but racism is central to American Capitalism and has become increasingly imporatant in other countries with large heterogeneous labor pools and has been fundamental to imperialism.

The difference between now and other times in the US or other industrial countries where racism is a big part of how capitalist society reproduces/maintains itself is not so much decline or increase, but different functions at different times for different social conditions.

Like Alexander argues in "The New Jim Crow" the main constant in anti-black racism in the US is not the form of it or the attitudes associated with it (this changes, at some points blacks are seen as hard working and passive, other times "lazy" and unruly) but that US racism is a system of control. Since class societies need to control the populations, this particular form has been built-into US capitalism.

I agree that the US and other major industrial states are racist to a point. But the ruling classes in these states are not entirely dedicated to racism. For example, the European ruling class is opposed to the various right-wing populist movements on the Continent because they potentially endanger the ability of European capital to exploit migrant labor. Thus, European capital (like American capital, to a degree), supports some form of cultural tolerance in order to continue to exploit migrant labor, not because they are trying to create a multiethnic socialist state, as right-wing conspiracy theorists argue.


I don't know about this. One of the main arguments against affirmative action (often made by liberals) is that in a "color-blind" society it goes against meritocracy to have affirmative action. Modern liberals tend to favor affirmative action only to the extent of creating "diversity".

I always interpreted affirmative action as "righting past wrongs" in order to create a fairer playing field, with an eye toward enhancing meritocracy down the road. Unlike conservatives, liberals usually do not think we have arrived at meritocracy yet, therefore liberals continue to support various programs that are meant to give oppressed minorities a "leg up" so to speak.


I don't think racism was ever used as a justification for capitalism, rather - sometimes - as a justification for inequality competition within capitalism. And people who support racism in the broad sense of supporting the continuation of racial oppression (as opposed to Racists of the KKK sort) certainly do see racism and meritocracy as being one and the same. "Why are working class schools failing?Because black students don't want to learn and black parents are bad at parenting (this is argued by centrists like Obama). Why are black people in prison or under-employed? Because they just don't want to go to school and work for success."

Racism served both purposes. In the South socialism was seen as something that would necessarily mean the end of white supremacy, and this was the line sold to white workers to get them to continue to support the system. Martin Luther King, for example, was often described by white supremacists as a "communist agent," with the clear connotation that communism would end the system of white supremacy in the South.

Nowadays, white supremacy is off the table, so racism takes different forms, like the ones you mention, where meritocratic and racist arguments are mixed. Although, one could also characterize those arguments as having a more classist tint. Obama, Bill Cosby, and a host of successful African-Americans often say essentially the same things about the the alleged shortcomings of black people as do Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh , but are Obama and Cosby racist or classist?


I think the justifications, come after the fact of the deeds. Capitalism theoretically doesn't need any specific form of oppression, but in order to exploit is also needs to oppress the large exploited majority. To justify this oppression the victims need to be blamed and the larger exploited group needs to be broken into hostile competing bits.

I agree with you. This has been the historical strategy of capitalism. I just wonder if we are witnessing a major change in the way that capitalism breaks down its oppressed populations. With the advent of mass education and the presence of anti-discrimination laws, there is powerful facade of meritocracy over the capitalist system that was hard to justify in the past when higher education was limited to the wealthy or those with connections and when official and unofficial discrimination was blatant and accepted.

The language employed by Obama against African-Americans alleging that their failures are the product of the aggregate individual shortcomings of individual black people is going to become more and more common. In this sense, Obama is serving the capitalist class very well because he is saying what a white president could not say without significant criticism for being racist. But when it comes from Obama it is seen as a wise form of "tough love."

[Comrade Jacob]

It's the divide and conquer tactics of capitalism. Make the proletariat gang up on each other instead of having solidarity and resisting the capitalists.

[John Nada]

I agree that the US and other major industrial states are racist to a point. But the ruling classes in these states are not entirely dedicated to racism. For example, the European ruling class is opposed to the various right-wing populist movements on the Continent because they potentially endanger the ability of European capital to exploit migrant labor. Thus, European capital (like American capital, to a degree), supports some form of cultural tolerance in order to continue to exploit migrant labor, not because they are trying to create a multiethnic socialist state, as right-wing conspiracy theorists argue.A lot of European capitalists would love nothing more than a multiethnic state, for that's exactly what the colonial empires were. What the capitalist don't want is to actually have the "burden" of directly governing those colonies and spending "their hard earned money" supporting the subjugated people. Hence the rise of neo-colonialism.

The bourgeoisie are not a monolith. There are different factions, cliques, sectors(eg oil, agriculture, financial, service, ect.), nationals, "new" and "old" money, families and individuals with their own interests, allies, enemies, conflicts and opinions. There's likely beliefs ranging from fascists to communist class traitors.

The compete against each other for domination and strive for a monopoly Yet the capitalists are willing to unite for their mutual individual interest. This takes on the form of joint ownership, cartels, trusts, subcontracts, lobby groups, even marriages and military alliances on a national level. Even when bourgeoise of some countries achieves a complete monopoly, other capitalists from other countries also want a monopoly to. When different bourgeois sides collide on a national level, or when people threating their investment, wars and coups arise. This is imperialism, monopoly capitalism.
I always interpreted affirmative action as "righting past wrongs" in order to create a fairer playing field, with an eye toward enhancing meritocracy down the road. Unlike conservatives, liberals usually do not think we have arrived at meritocracy yet, therefore liberals continue to support various programs that are meant to give oppressed minorities a "leg up" so to speak.One, affirmative action arose during the Cold War. The Soviets had a much more comprehensive anti-hate laws and affirmative action programs for oppressed peoples. It's very hypocritical that the US and the UK were talking about how oppressive the Soviets were, when both presided over empires that treated the subjugated people like shit, with no democracy or rights. Didn't help the US's case when they were conscripting minorities to massacre workers and peasants in the neo-colony, south Vietnam.

Two, there was a very militant civil rights movement. There was marches, boycotts, strikes, riots and (to varying degrees)radical groups gaining support. While a lot of the American press and white Americans thought these liberation movements were a bunch of "thugs", the rest of the world was horrified how bad the US was treating oppressed people and sympathized with them. Politicians wanted to get(or not lose) votes on civil rights issues. The progressive reforms were an attempt to calm the oppressed peoples, not unlike how the labor movement got concessions. Both to thwart a potential revolution.

Three, the colonies of the world were given at least de jure independence. Their liberation struggles forced the hand of many other dominate nations too. Also there was a need to do business with them. Have an extremely racists populus is bad if the US wanted to do business or militarily occupy the rest of the world, and send total bigoted douchebags to do it. Creating a workforce that could at least be in the same room with POC is definately in the bourgeoisie's interest.
Racism served both purposes. In the South socialism was seen as something that would necessarily mean the end of white supremacy, and this was the line sold to white workers to get them to continue to support the system. Martin Luther King, for example, was often described by white supremacists as a "communist agent," with the clear connotation that communism would end the system of white supremacy in the South.I think the whole racist US saw socialism as threat to white supremacy, because it is!:lol:

I remember a documentary about the Loving(ironically actual last name) couple who broke the anti-interracial marriage laws and successfully got the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia They were a black/Native American woman, Mildred Loving, and her white husband, Richard Loving. They said interracial relationships were already common among the poor people, just looked down on by the upper class.

I think a lot of people are really overestimating how much the racist shit comes from below. It's like this idea that the more educated and enlightened (petty-)bourgeoisie are above this and it's just poor white folks keeping it alive. Yes, a lot(most?) white American proletarians are racist. But the proletariat, especially the lower stratum, are more likely to actually live and work with people of other races. The petty-bourgeoisie, labor aristocracy and the big bourgeoisie often live in expensive communities where you could essentially go your whole life only seeing white people. I'd say like just about everything it's imposed and maintained from above.

Among the bourgeoisie and the wavering classes, they had their reasons. Laws upholding segregation let businesses shut out POC. Minority workers were shut out of higher-paying jobs left exclusively for white people. Menial jobs were left over for minorities. Government benefits went more to white people. Private property such as house, land and small-businesses were exclusively for a white monopoly. It was all to support the "good old boys" network of the white bourgeoisie, who reaped superprofits from oppressed peoples, not unlike internal colonies. Racism is the ideology to back up imperialism.
Nowadays, white supremacy is off the table, so racism takes different forms, like the ones you mention, where meritocratic and racist arguments are mixed. Although, one could also characterize those arguments as having a more classist tint. Obama, Bill Cosby, and a host of successful African-Americans often say essentially the same things about the the alleged shortcomings of black people as do Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh , but are Obama and Cosby racist or classist?Sadly white supremacy is still on the table. It just changed form. Like how the bourgeoisie likes to pretend the ex-colonies aren't all fucked up because of their imperialist superexploitation("They need a better uncorrupted government, not a bunch of cronies violating the rights of the free market"), they claim that there is no more racism. Obviously there still is racism, but that word got a negative connotation, for good reason. Instead, they say everything is on the individual. If that individual doesn't pull themselves up by there bootstraps, they're doing something bad. That a whole group of people isn't digging out of the trap capitalism built, that whole group must be bad in their mind. In the racists' minds, it's not racist stereotypes but facts.

Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan are bourgeois shitbags who would fade into obscurity(rightfully so) if they didn't say dumbass bigoted shit. Professional demagogues, because that the only shit they're good at. And those hypocrites whine about Sharpton all time like he's black people's hive mind and the only reason anyone thinks racism is real. They should thank that FBI informant for his job as an outside pacifier whenever there's a potential riot.

With Obama and Cosby, they've likely internalized the racism of society at large. They have the role as intermediaries in superexploitation of other black people by the white bourgeoisie. Being bourgeois is being classist by default.
I agree with you. This has been the historical strategy of capitalism. I just wonder if we are witnessing a major change in the way that capitalism breaks down its oppressed populations. With the advent of mass education and the presence of anti-discrimination laws, there is powerful facade of meritocracy over the capitalist system that was hard to justify in the past when higher education was limited to the wealthy or those with connections and when official and unofficial discrimination was blatant and accepted.

The language employed by Obama against African-Americans alleging that their failures are the product of the aggregate individual shortcomings of individual black people is going to become more and more common. In this sense, Obama is serving the capitalist class very well because he is saying what a white president could not say without significant criticism for being racist. But when it comes from Obama it is seen as a wise form of "tough love."Sadly it's been common as fuck for a long time. He's just repeating tired old shit. He's a comprador bourgeois intermediary for US imperialism.