The Sloth
25th July 2004, 16:19
I will be adding more and more to this as time goes on...I hope to get in about 50 points and further elaborate on the ones I already have.
Is this worthy of being made a sticky?
A Communist Debater's Guide
This is a no-bullshit guide/manual for any communist that frequently finds himself in situations with rabid right-wingers. Unlike the common FAQ’s found on many different Marxist sites that focus on elementary objections to communism such as “human nature” and whether the egalitarian distribution of wealth is “fair” to both the doctor and the janitor, this particular guide is for those dealing with more detailed and sophisticated issues. Everything is taken question-by-question in an attempt to penetrate the capitalist’s argument in hopes of converting irrational minds to cold, hard facts and common sense.
Most of my thank-you’s will go to…no, not God, but to the Che-Lives community for helping me sharpen my debating skills and for supplying me with the facts that were necessary for the creation of this ever-growing, comprehensive manual. Enjoy!
1. The state is fundamental to the ideas of order and democracy. A police force is necessary for insurance that this is carried out.
When I say that “the state” is both unnecessary and a hindrance to the healthy development of humankind, I’m aware of the repercussions that you “believe” will come into effect by the removal of this “state.”
“The state” is an organized bureaucracy that is erected by the upper-class. If you contest this claim, you only need to look at any government in existence today, especially ours. Most of the wealth of our country is controlled by a small minority that controls the politics and thus domestic and foreign policies that are carried out. Corporations have immense ties to both the Republicans and the Democrats, and under capitalism, with all of its “competitiveness”, all of its “self-interest” as the “rule of thumb” for economic and social development, doesn’t it make sense that the people’s interest comes directly after the interests of the upper strata? If the answer is “no”, I would ask you to explain “why.” But since there is no reasonable explanation, we’ll have to assume the assertion that “their interests come before ours” is correct. If it wasn’t, one is left to assume that there would be no hungry or homeless individual in existence; there is not only enough wealth to go around, but there is also an immense potential for surplus value that can be used to not only satisfy the universal needs, but also slowly cater to our wants until satisfaction is met. I am not saying anything you don’t already know!
“The state” is run by the upper-strata, as already mentioned, but in order to ensure the wealth of the minority, regulations and institutions are erected that cater to this fraction of the population. The myth that “working hard” can achieve “anything” (this will be discussed in detail later on) is thus established, nationalistic tendencies become present (for the purpose of always putting “our interests” above “international interests”), and class antagonisms are intensified. If class antagonisms were non-existent, would there be any need for a state, even? Why is the state here, if not to “regulate” and “control” these antagonisms to levels that are “bearable” for those with the money, and thus the power?
It is also interesting to note that the American police force in the North East started to really develop around the time of industrialization. This is because once the workers were placed in factories, pressured to work under intolerable conditions, receiving only sustenance-level wages for their labor, tensions not only became visible but were actually mounting and making the employers nervous. The police were used to keep these individuals “in check”, to hurt protestors and organizers, and, basically, to look out for the interests not of the common citizen, but of the institution that “takes care” of the police officer, the institution that “makes sure” the officer gets his paycheck…that institution, of course, is the bureaucracy, “the state”, that owns the police department, that collects taxes from the employer, and that entangles the masses in its web. It’s not complicated, however, as any reasonable person can see this easily.
In the South, for what reasons do you think the emergence of the police took place? If you answered “to uphold slavery”, you are correct. And quite the coincidence that “slaves” were considered “property” and thus, yet again, the rise of a police force is in conformity with the need to give “protection” to the property of the upper-class! The police, then, have historically been the agent of “state order”, but this “order” is actually “chaotic” since “order” means the capitalist class, “the maintaining of class antagonisms (the division of people) for the purpose of profit.”
“Well, look at what we would be doing to each other if there was no police!” Realistically, if the police was abolished today, with no change in wealth distribution or mode of production, then I can agree with that statement. But remember, criminals are bred by the society they live in. I doubt many hoodlums rob stores, or deal drugs “for the fun of it.” It’s really an act of desperation, when other options are not open, and when the individual’s prospects look hopeless. And when it is actually done “for the fun of it”, there is no one to blame but the capitalist that has been systematically glorifying the anti-intellectual gangster simply because it is profitable! Look at the music, the television shows, and the music for evidence of this “insane assertion.”
So, what can be concluded from this? If you remove the class antagonisms, if you relieve the burden of inequality and unemployment, if you refuse to glorify the gangster, then what happens? Crime is attenuated, and the need for police officers is no longer present. If property is abolished, the police will no longer be able to function on their “second job” of protecting the wealth of the upper-class. Then, “the state” begins to “wither away” as not only is there no police force to protect it, but its main function—to create “order” out of class antagonisms—is no longer necessary as class antagonisms are abolished! And finally, with the people governing themselves, existing in a kind of harmony, it is only rarely that a “social misfit” such as a “murderer”, or a “gangster” just jumps out and is simply begging for rehabilitation. In effect, we have just abolished “the state.”
If this seems “utopian”, simply think for yourself about what the “real” function of “the state” is, and carry it out to its natural conclusions. If you follow the logic all the way through, not stopping to skew reality or change the current nature of things, then the conclusion will be identical to mine, and to what the communists have been saying for some time now.
2. While our current society is materialistic, we are making towards progress of changing this reality under capitalism.
This is a lie with absolutely no substance. I guess the capitalist always sees clichés on his T.V. screen such as “money can’t buy happiness,” or “health and love, not money, is what’s important,” etc. Despite the honesty of these truisms, I hope that everyone understands that they cannot really be followed through fully. The reason for this can be explained by the nature of capitalism: since it is a system that regards “competitiveness”, “self-interest” and, ultimately, “profits” as the “highest merits,” it is only natural that human beings will be raised to want to naturally hound after money to satisfy the desires that society has created artificially (“artificially” meaning that these desires do not have to exist if the proper circumstances are present).
What is also just as important to consider is the materialism in the media, despite the aforementioned, occasional clichés. Popular media outlets such as MTV and BET air shows that show the lifestyles of those with money, air music videos with shallow lyrics featuring large pieces of jewelry, etc. while the viewers sit back and watch, caught up in a fantasy world, wishing and wondering “what it would be like” if they were “them.” Too much dreaming leads to distancing from reality, and these folks end up as slaves to the very concept of wealth. While this affects different individuals to different degrees (i.e. very few are actually “slaves” to wealth), many are, to an extent, distanced from reality and feel self-conscious about certain aspects of themselves due to what is seen on television, where the “beautiful people” are the “rulers,” the “people to be.” Again, this doesn’t affect everyone to the same degree or in the same way, but nonetheless, many will be trapped in these self-conscious wants unless they raise their consciousness.
And when their consciousness is raised, they realize that it is actually the system itself that puts them in such a dilemma, and while many are able to fight it off, many are not. To change the mentality of “wealth is the highest merit of a human being” on more than just an individual basis requires a change in the very system that not only allows such mentalities, but also fosters them. We are making absolutely no strides to correct this problem despite the popular belief. Materialistic tendencies are growing by the minute and, inversely, the intellectual and emotional attachments to world problems and other realities are decreasing.
3. Hard work will get anyone anywhere.
It is true that many individuals through very hard work, focus, and determination will be able to achieve their objectives sooner or later.
On the other hand, there are intelligent and hard-working people that spend their lives laboring but never make any more profit than to cover the basic expenses and minor luxuries.
But if you want to focus on those that reach their goals, then by all means, let us talk about them. If a person comes out of poverty and turns himself into a self-made millionaire and a serious philanthropist, then great. That’s all well and good, but remember, he was put into an unfair situation upon birth, for no other reason than birth, for no other reason than uncontrollable circumstances. This is especially true if this individual is black, another uncontrollable circumstance, but sometimes determines the person’s income, neighborhood, etc. Why is it fair that one individual must work five times as hard as another just to put himself up to the same level as a random individual from a very wealthy community, then work just as hard in order to accrue the same wealth? True, hard work may allow one to reach certain objectives, but the level/degree of this “hard work” varies by birth, not merit.
If the world was truly a meritocracy, then I can find you some unemployed individuals from the ghetto that deserve everything that the upper-class has. But due to our current realities, this is, more often than not, impossible.
To make matters worse, those that come out of poverty and enter success sometimes do nothing more than promote welfare, contributing money that can be expendable. To make serious changes in the structure of society is dependent upon smashing the status quo and current modes of production. Anything less than that are mere reforms that are both too narrow in scope and too limited in effectiveness.
4. Communists claim that capitalism promotes racism, yet I see no evidence of this.
First of all, I think it’s important to look at what racism is, where it comes from, and how different institutions tend to directly or indirectly promote it.
Racism is a defense mechanism when an individual feels threatened, especially when the ego is at stake. Since there is no scientific basis for discrepancies between races large enough to promote the idea of “inferiority” and “superiority,” it can be said that racism is also a one-hundred percent emotional and irrational reaction. When interests are threatened (“interests” such as employment, pride, the ego, etc.), and the two individuals in question are of different races, the one that ends up losing face may develop feelings against the particular race that he came in contact with. This is usually because a person is most easily identified by the face and his color; since few individuals have the “same face,” color becomes what is focused on the most since it can be attributed to a huge number of individuals.
That identification, we shall see, is the foundation of racism.
Under capitalism, inequalities exist; inequalities not only exist, but they must exist for a free-market economy to function. Since the United States has had a history of racist tendencies, it is only natural that the effects of such tendencies are handed down from generation to generation. For economic reasons, blacks mostly live in segregated communities, just like whites and Hispanics. Thus, many whites are not able to come in regular and consistent contact with other races, effectively developing an ignorance from which fear and racism stems. Since the media also has a tendency to portray non-whites as human beings with animalistic qualities (aggressive, materialistic, violent, irrational, etc.) this does not help the situation. On top of this, and unfortunately, it seems as if bourgeois blacks prefer to live in black communities, despite the fact that their incomes may surpass that even of whites. Harlem, for example, is mostly a black community of lower income. Some sections, such as Sugar Hill, however, are good neighborhoods in which upper-middle-class blacks live, out of “comfort” for being amongst “the same people.” While this is understandable, it is also irrational. What is even worse is the fact that even if you take a white person that fears blacks to Sugar Hill, he will still be fearful despite being re-assured that the community is actually rather beautiful and rather nice. The reason for this is simple: due to the mass segregation of blacks, whites, and Hispanics, some groups will feel uncomfortable around others because they do not understand anyone but their own race.
Another point is employment. In black communities, many of the stores are owned by whites that have the initial capital to run a business. When blacks go to spend their money in such places, it is important to remember that the white business owner usually does not live in that community. At the end of the day, he takes the profits and goes off to his neighborhood, brings in the cash, and thus allows it to circulate in his community rather than where he actually works. Blacks, if they are even able to find a job, are forced to work either as menial laborers or they are placed as secretaries, for example, under the supervision of the white business owner. While exceptions exist, of course, these exceptions are far and in between; they exist on an individual basis, not on a mass scale to actually create a difference.
If blacks are competing with whites for jobs, this only reinforces racism because, generally speaking, in an urban environment, the white and the black do not live in the same areas. And since a sense of ignorance is present, the fact that a Mexican, or a black, is able to get a job before the white, hear the cries of protest: “these damn immigrants are coming into my country and taking employment for themselves!” Xenophobic tendencies are, thus, also present and developed because capitalism, after all, is about competition and self-interest. When a certain person from a different race is chosen over another for employment, what the rejected individual remembers most is the “race”…but why does the rejected feel more entitled to employment, in the first place? Could it be because, in the past, he was used to being the “first pick”?
Hmmmm…
The media also plays a very important part of racism. While there aren’t direct references to “inferiority” or some other non-sense, much of the “entertainment” is aimed at blacks. However, and very unfortunately, most of this “entertainment” is anti-intellectual bullshit that promotes a gangster mentality and self-destructive, wealth-whoring lifestyles. Of course by paying attention to that garbage, the black youth will adopt the attitude they see on television simply because “that rapper made it!” or “that basketball star always gets in trouble, but is looked up to and rich.” These are seen as the “keys to success” and the “gate to happiness”…and who is there to tell the youth any different? And white adults look down on these individuals as if they are to blame. And white youth too, believing the myth that “to be a gangster is to be masculine,” to feel “more powerful,” adopt the same attitudes they observe. And who profits from this?
The capitalist owners.
You can’t expect them to “quit it” or to look for more “productive” ways to profit because, in the end, business is not always intertwined with morality and “what’s best” for the majority.
5. Blacks received civil rights and equality decades ago and now are only squandering their new-found opportunities.
Blacks received “civil rights” but simply because the right to vote exists and restaurants, public bathrooms and water fountains are no longer segregated, or schools are no longer “all white” or “all black” is meaningless.
What does “the right to vote” or “the right to go to a white school” mean in terms of combating poverty (where “poverty” is the primary reason behind the current racial situation)? “The right to go to a white school” is meaningless when your community is poor, and thus “too far” from the school, or when a host of problems distract you from your academic work, thus not giving you the ability to actually attend the school in question (or at least have a much smaller chance of attending than another person). This is especially true if it is a private institution that cannot be afforded.
The only way to change the situation is to change the methods of production. If you plan on contesting this, simply look at history in America. We have enacted multiple welfare programs, affirmative action, etc. and the economic situation is not exactly progressing, or at least progressing at an acceptable pace. In the end, “welfare programs” are too limited in scope and are mainly here to give immediate relief (which is ineffective), and, of course, to keep the socialists at bay. Black communities do not consist of a row of rats’ shacks, so when living conditions are kept “decent” or “acceptable,” then the prospect of “something better” is not an accessible reality.
There really seems to be only one solution to this problem, and it’s not a free market/“chaos” system.
6. Despite what communists believe, the majority of the capitalist world is rich and its people are satisfied. This is especially true in the United States where the people enjoy opportunity and high living standards.
It is true that under capitalism America enjoys a standard of living and wealth that is far greater than many other countries in the world.
What seems to be forgotten far too easily, however, is the fact that America’s wealth exists at the expense of other nations. In other words, our great “standard of living” and “powerful wealth” is thanks to the nations that have nothing now and have been plundered for their resources a while back.
For example, just so the American companies can promote the sale of diamonds, thus effectively forcing middle and lower-class people to be whores to the mere “idea” (not even the actual accumulation of) money, you have Africans in Sierra-Leone afflicted with malnutrition have their hands cut off, bodies crushed, etc. for the purpose of mining these diamonds. And all of this suffering for a worthless object, worthless because it has no practical use outside of technical, physical and mechanical tasks. And, of course, all of this suffering for a profit that is made off of something which is not “needed,” only “desired” simply because the upper-class deems it “desirable.”
South Americans, Indians and Africans (hmmmm, all people of color) have had their resources plundered by imperialist nations such as America, Spain and Britain. Today, markets are established in these regions from which profit is taken for the respective companies and governments of the foreign investors, although little to no profit is returned to the nations where the markets actually are. Thus, the people there are kept in a state of poverty and hopelessness, for your own wealth.
Your existence is at the expense of the world’s majority. This goes on even in the United States, where domestically, the people’s labor is exploited for a huge profit in exchange for poor wages. This shows that there are worlds inside worlds: the West lives at the expense of the Third-World, the United States upper-class lives at the expense of the middle and lower social strata, and specific communities exist at the expense of other communities. This bird’s-eye view gets closer and closer until, finally, it picks off at individual existences, how your wealth or lack of wealth affects others, and etcetera.
7. While it is true that Africa, South America and India has workers that are forced to labor under bad conditions and for poor wages, the situation there is better than before the capitalist corporations arrived. Those regions actually have employment now.
It is good to see capitalists that admit to the terrible conditions in the Third World. However, there is a misconception that since “employment was given,” all of a sudden there is justification for this kind of conditions. The “employment” was not given out of the goodness of the hearts of the capitalist owners. Rather, it was given as an investment, and investments must always yield more profit than the initial capital that was put down to run the operation. The “terrible conditions” are profitable for the capitalist owner because he can actually get away with giving poor wages. And when the nature of the employment is considered, it is obvious why the owner does not go to other regions for finding labor: he can’t! To make the most profit, one must give the minimum possible wages to the workers. In the case of Africa and South America, the “minimum wage” is that of “sustenance”; enough money is given to survive, so the African can return to work the next day and continue yielding profits for the owner.
Remember—the “employment” exists not to “improve” the livelihood of the Third World inhabitants. Rather, “employment” exists to satisfy the greedy urges of the actual owners. There is no justification for the current state of things, regardless of the fact that jobs were created.
Another important point, according to Che-Lives member perception:
"I think an important point in countering this argument - that without MNC's providing sweatshop jobs there'd be no jobs at all in these countries - is that these corporations consume the capital of the developing nations, 'crowding out' domestic industries from developing. Further, the profits they generate are expatriated back to the mother country, whereas if it was a domestic operation the profits would be reinvested in the economy and used to create more jobs. So, in effect, they are not in any way helping in the long run as they are actually hindering the development of the domestic economy, freezing it, so to speak, in the state of dependency on foreign capital. And if conditions do improve - for example, productivity increases and the workers are able to demand higher wages - the foreign capital packs up and moves on, leaving nothing to behind but its abandoned factories.
"In the end, it would be 100x better for the third worlders if they were being paid shˇt wages by domestic capitalists, because at least then they would be contributing to the development of their economy."
Is this worthy of being made a sticky?
A Communist Debater's Guide
This is a no-bullshit guide/manual for any communist that frequently finds himself in situations with rabid right-wingers. Unlike the common FAQ’s found on many different Marxist sites that focus on elementary objections to communism such as “human nature” and whether the egalitarian distribution of wealth is “fair” to both the doctor and the janitor, this particular guide is for those dealing with more detailed and sophisticated issues. Everything is taken question-by-question in an attempt to penetrate the capitalist’s argument in hopes of converting irrational minds to cold, hard facts and common sense.
Most of my thank-you’s will go to…no, not God, but to the Che-Lives community for helping me sharpen my debating skills and for supplying me with the facts that were necessary for the creation of this ever-growing, comprehensive manual. Enjoy!
1. The state is fundamental to the ideas of order and democracy. A police force is necessary for insurance that this is carried out.
When I say that “the state” is both unnecessary and a hindrance to the healthy development of humankind, I’m aware of the repercussions that you “believe” will come into effect by the removal of this “state.”
“The state” is an organized bureaucracy that is erected by the upper-class. If you contest this claim, you only need to look at any government in existence today, especially ours. Most of the wealth of our country is controlled by a small minority that controls the politics and thus domestic and foreign policies that are carried out. Corporations have immense ties to both the Republicans and the Democrats, and under capitalism, with all of its “competitiveness”, all of its “self-interest” as the “rule of thumb” for economic and social development, doesn’t it make sense that the people’s interest comes directly after the interests of the upper strata? If the answer is “no”, I would ask you to explain “why.” But since there is no reasonable explanation, we’ll have to assume the assertion that “their interests come before ours” is correct. If it wasn’t, one is left to assume that there would be no hungry or homeless individual in existence; there is not only enough wealth to go around, but there is also an immense potential for surplus value that can be used to not only satisfy the universal needs, but also slowly cater to our wants until satisfaction is met. I am not saying anything you don’t already know!
“The state” is run by the upper-strata, as already mentioned, but in order to ensure the wealth of the minority, regulations and institutions are erected that cater to this fraction of the population. The myth that “working hard” can achieve “anything” (this will be discussed in detail later on) is thus established, nationalistic tendencies become present (for the purpose of always putting “our interests” above “international interests”), and class antagonisms are intensified. If class antagonisms were non-existent, would there be any need for a state, even? Why is the state here, if not to “regulate” and “control” these antagonisms to levels that are “bearable” for those with the money, and thus the power?
It is also interesting to note that the American police force in the North East started to really develop around the time of industrialization. This is because once the workers were placed in factories, pressured to work under intolerable conditions, receiving only sustenance-level wages for their labor, tensions not only became visible but were actually mounting and making the employers nervous. The police were used to keep these individuals “in check”, to hurt protestors and organizers, and, basically, to look out for the interests not of the common citizen, but of the institution that “takes care” of the police officer, the institution that “makes sure” the officer gets his paycheck…that institution, of course, is the bureaucracy, “the state”, that owns the police department, that collects taxes from the employer, and that entangles the masses in its web. It’s not complicated, however, as any reasonable person can see this easily.
In the South, for what reasons do you think the emergence of the police took place? If you answered “to uphold slavery”, you are correct. And quite the coincidence that “slaves” were considered “property” and thus, yet again, the rise of a police force is in conformity with the need to give “protection” to the property of the upper-class! The police, then, have historically been the agent of “state order”, but this “order” is actually “chaotic” since “order” means the capitalist class, “the maintaining of class antagonisms (the division of people) for the purpose of profit.”
“Well, look at what we would be doing to each other if there was no police!” Realistically, if the police was abolished today, with no change in wealth distribution or mode of production, then I can agree with that statement. But remember, criminals are bred by the society they live in. I doubt many hoodlums rob stores, or deal drugs “for the fun of it.” It’s really an act of desperation, when other options are not open, and when the individual’s prospects look hopeless. And when it is actually done “for the fun of it”, there is no one to blame but the capitalist that has been systematically glorifying the anti-intellectual gangster simply because it is profitable! Look at the music, the television shows, and the music for evidence of this “insane assertion.”
So, what can be concluded from this? If you remove the class antagonisms, if you relieve the burden of inequality and unemployment, if you refuse to glorify the gangster, then what happens? Crime is attenuated, and the need for police officers is no longer present. If property is abolished, the police will no longer be able to function on their “second job” of protecting the wealth of the upper-class. Then, “the state” begins to “wither away” as not only is there no police force to protect it, but its main function—to create “order” out of class antagonisms—is no longer necessary as class antagonisms are abolished! And finally, with the people governing themselves, existing in a kind of harmony, it is only rarely that a “social misfit” such as a “murderer”, or a “gangster” just jumps out and is simply begging for rehabilitation. In effect, we have just abolished “the state.”
If this seems “utopian”, simply think for yourself about what the “real” function of “the state” is, and carry it out to its natural conclusions. If you follow the logic all the way through, not stopping to skew reality or change the current nature of things, then the conclusion will be identical to mine, and to what the communists have been saying for some time now.
2. While our current society is materialistic, we are making towards progress of changing this reality under capitalism.
This is a lie with absolutely no substance. I guess the capitalist always sees clichés on his T.V. screen such as “money can’t buy happiness,” or “health and love, not money, is what’s important,” etc. Despite the honesty of these truisms, I hope that everyone understands that they cannot really be followed through fully. The reason for this can be explained by the nature of capitalism: since it is a system that regards “competitiveness”, “self-interest” and, ultimately, “profits” as the “highest merits,” it is only natural that human beings will be raised to want to naturally hound after money to satisfy the desires that society has created artificially (“artificially” meaning that these desires do not have to exist if the proper circumstances are present).
What is also just as important to consider is the materialism in the media, despite the aforementioned, occasional clichés. Popular media outlets such as MTV and BET air shows that show the lifestyles of those with money, air music videos with shallow lyrics featuring large pieces of jewelry, etc. while the viewers sit back and watch, caught up in a fantasy world, wishing and wondering “what it would be like” if they were “them.” Too much dreaming leads to distancing from reality, and these folks end up as slaves to the very concept of wealth. While this affects different individuals to different degrees (i.e. very few are actually “slaves” to wealth), many are, to an extent, distanced from reality and feel self-conscious about certain aspects of themselves due to what is seen on television, where the “beautiful people” are the “rulers,” the “people to be.” Again, this doesn’t affect everyone to the same degree or in the same way, but nonetheless, many will be trapped in these self-conscious wants unless they raise their consciousness.
And when their consciousness is raised, they realize that it is actually the system itself that puts them in such a dilemma, and while many are able to fight it off, many are not. To change the mentality of “wealth is the highest merit of a human being” on more than just an individual basis requires a change in the very system that not only allows such mentalities, but also fosters them. We are making absolutely no strides to correct this problem despite the popular belief. Materialistic tendencies are growing by the minute and, inversely, the intellectual and emotional attachments to world problems and other realities are decreasing.
3. Hard work will get anyone anywhere.
It is true that many individuals through very hard work, focus, and determination will be able to achieve their objectives sooner or later.
On the other hand, there are intelligent and hard-working people that spend their lives laboring but never make any more profit than to cover the basic expenses and minor luxuries.
But if you want to focus on those that reach their goals, then by all means, let us talk about them. If a person comes out of poverty and turns himself into a self-made millionaire and a serious philanthropist, then great. That’s all well and good, but remember, he was put into an unfair situation upon birth, for no other reason than birth, for no other reason than uncontrollable circumstances. This is especially true if this individual is black, another uncontrollable circumstance, but sometimes determines the person’s income, neighborhood, etc. Why is it fair that one individual must work five times as hard as another just to put himself up to the same level as a random individual from a very wealthy community, then work just as hard in order to accrue the same wealth? True, hard work may allow one to reach certain objectives, but the level/degree of this “hard work” varies by birth, not merit.
If the world was truly a meritocracy, then I can find you some unemployed individuals from the ghetto that deserve everything that the upper-class has. But due to our current realities, this is, more often than not, impossible.
To make matters worse, those that come out of poverty and enter success sometimes do nothing more than promote welfare, contributing money that can be expendable. To make serious changes in the structure of society is dependent upon smashing the status quo and current modes of production. Anything less than that are mere reforms that are both too narrow in scope and too limited in effectiveness.
4. Communists claim that capitalism promotes racism, yet I see no evidence of this.
First of all, I think it’s important to look at what racism is, where it comes from, and how different institutions tend to directly or indirectly promote it.
Racism is a defense mechanism when an individual feels threatened, especially when the ego is at stake. Since there is no scientific basis for discrepancies between races large enough to promote the idea of “inferiority” and “superiority,” it can be said that racism is also a one-hundred percent emotional and irrational reaction. When interests are threatened (“interests” such as employment, pride, the ego, etc.), and the two individuals in question are of different races, the one that ends up losing face may develop feelings against the particular race that he came in contact with. This is usually because a person is most easily identified by the face and his color; since few individuals have the “same face,” color becomes what is focused on the most since it can be attributed to a huge number of individuals.
That identification, we shall see, is the foundation of racism.
Under capitalism, inequalities exist; inequalities not only exist, but they must exist for a free-market economy to function. Since the United States has had a history of racist tendencies, it is only natural that the effects of such tendencies are handed down from generation to generation. For economic reasons, blacks mostly live in segregated communities, just like whites and Hispanics. Thus, many whites are not able to come in regular and consistent contact with other races, effectively developing an ignorance from which fear and racism stems. Since the media also has a tendency to portray non-whites as human beings with animalistic qualities (aggressive, materialistic, violent, irrational, etc.) this does not help the situation. On top of this, and unfortunately, it seems as if bourgeois blacks prefer to live in black communities, despite the fact that their incomes may surpass that even of whites. Harlem, for example, is mostly a black community of lower income. Some sections, such as Sugar Hill, however, are good neighborhoods in which upper-middle-class blacks live, out of “comfort” for being amongst “the same people.” While this is understandable, it is also irrational. What is even worse is the fact that even if you take a white person that fears blacks to Sugar Hill, he will still be fearful despite being re-assured that the community is actually rather beautiful and rather nice. The reason for this is simple: due to the mass segregation of blacks, whites, and Hispanics, some groups will feel uncomfortable around others because they do not understand anyone but their own race.
Another point is employment. In black communities, many of the stores are owned by whites that have the initial capital to run a business. When blacks go to spend their money in such places, it is important to remember that the white business owner usually does not live in that community. At the end of the day, he takes the profits and goes off to his neighborhood, brings in the cash, and thus allows it to circulate in his community rather than where he actually works. Blacks, if they are even able to find a job, are forced to work either as menial laborers or they are placed as secretaries, for example, under the supervision of the white business owner. While exceptions exist, of course, these exceptions are far and in between; they exist on an individual basis, not on a mass scale to actually create a difference.
If blacks are competing with whites for jobs, this only reinforces racism because, generally speaking, in an urban environment, the white and the black do not live in the same areas. And since a sense of ignorance is present, the fact that a Mexican, or a black, is able to get a job before the white, hear the cries of protest: “these damn immigrants are coming into my country and taking employment for themselves!” Xenophobic tendencies are, thus, also present and developed because capitalism, after all, is about competition and self-interest. When a certain person from a different race is chosen over another for employment, what the rejected individual remembers most is the “race”…but why does the rejected feel more entitled to employment, in the first place? Could it be because, in the past, he was used to being the “first pick”?
Hmmmm…
The media also plays a very important part of racism. While there aren’t direct references to “inferiority” or some other non-sense, much of the “entertainment” is aimed at blacks. However, and very unfortunately, most of this “entertainment” is anti-intellectual bullshit that promotes a gangster mentality and self-destructive, wealth-whoring lifestyles. Of course by paying attention to that garbage, the black youth will adopt the attitude they see on television simply because “that rapper made it!” or “that basketball star always gets in trouble, but is looked up to and rich.” These are seen as the “keys to success” and the “gate to happiness”…and who is there to tell the youth any different? And white adults look down on these individuals as if they are to blame. And white youth too, believing the myth that “to be a gangster is to be masculine,” to feel “more powerful,” adopt the same attitudes they observe. And who profits from this?
The capitalist owners.
You can’t expect them to “quit it” or to look for more “productive” ways to profit because, in the end, business is not always intertwined with morality and “what’s best” for the majority.
5. Blacks received civil rights and equality decades ago and now are only squandering their new-found opportunities.
Blacks received “civil rights” but simply because the right to vote exists and restaurants, public bathrooms and water fountains are no longer segregated, or schools are no longer “all white” or “all black” is meaningless.
What does “the right to vote” or “the right to go to a white school” mean in terms of combating poverty (where “poverty” is the primary reason behind the current racial situation)? “The right to go to a white school” is meaningless when your community is poor, and thus “too far” from the school, or when a host of problems distract you from your academic work, thus not giving you the ability to actually attend the school in question (or at least have a much smaller chance of attending than another person). This is especially true if it is a private institution that cannot be afforded.
The only way to change the situation is to change the methods of production. If you plan on contesting this, simply look at history in America. We have enacted multiple welfare programs, affirmative action, etc. and the economic situation is not exactly progressing, or at least progressing at an acceptable pace. In the end, “welfare programs” are too limited in scope and are mainly here to give immediate relief (which is ineffective), and, of course, to keep the socialists at bay. Black communities do not consist of a row of rats’ shacks, so when living conditions are kept “decent” or “acceptable,” then the prospect of “something better” is not an accessible reality.
There really seems to be only one solution to this problem, and it’s not a free market/“chaos” system.
6. Despite what communists believe, the majority of the capitalist world is rich and its people are satisfied. This is especially true in the United States where the people enjoy opportunity and high living standards.
It is true that under capitalism America enjoys a standard of living and wealth that is far greater than many other countries in the world.
What seems to be forgotten far too easily, however, is the fact that America’s wealth exists at the expense of other nations. In other words, our great “standard of living” and “powerful wealth” is thanks to the nations that have nothing now and have been plundered for their resources a while back.
For example, just so the American companies can promote the sale of diamonds, thus effectively forcing middle and lower-class people to be whores to the mere “idea” (not even the actual accumulation of) money, you have Africans in Sierra-Leone afflicted with malnutrition have their hands cut off, bodies crushed, etc. for the purpose of mining these diamonds. And all of this suffering for a worthless object, worthless because it has no practical use outside of technical, physical and mechanical tasks. And, of course, all of this suffering for a profit that is made off of something which is not “needed,” only “desired” simply because the upper-class deems it “desirable.”
South Americans, Indians and Africans (hmmmm, all people of color) have had their resources plundered by imperialist nations such as America, Spain and Britain. Today, markets are established in these regions from which profit is taken for the respective companies and governments of the foreign investors, although little to no profit is returned to the nations where the markets actually are. Thus, the people there are kept in a state of poverty and hopelessness, for your own wealth.
Your existence is at the expense of the world’s majority. This goes on even in the United States, where domestically, the people’s labor is exploited for a huge profit in exchange for poor wages. This shows that there are worlds inside worlds: the West lives at the expense of the Third-World, the United States upper-class lives at the expense of the middle and lower social strata, and specific communities exist at the expense of other communities. This bird’s-eye view gets closer and closer until, finally, it picks off at individual existences, how your wealth or lack of wealth affects others, and etcetera.
7. While it is true that Africa, South America and India has workers that are forced to labor under bad conditions and for poor wages, the situation there is better than before the capitalist corporations arrived. Those regions actually have employment now.
It is good to see capitalists that admit to the terrible conditions in the Third World. However, there is a misconception that since “employment was given,” all of a sudden there is justification for this kind of conditions. The “employment” was not given out of the goodness of the hearts of the capitalist owners. Rather, it was given as an investment, and investments must always yield more profit than the initial capital that was put down to run the operation. The “terrible conditions” are profitable for the capitalist owner because he can actually get away with giving poor wages. And when the nature of the employment is considered, it is obvious why the owner does not go to other regions for finding labor: he can’t! To make the most profit, one must give the minimum possible wages to the workers. In the case of Africa and South America, the “minimum wage” is that of “sustenance”; enough money is given to survive, so the African can return to work the next day and continue yielding profits for the owner.
Remember—the “employment” exists not to “improve” the livelihood of the Third World inhabitants. Rather, “employment” exists to satisfy the greedy urges of the actual owners. There is no justification for the current state of things, regardless of the fact that jobs were created.
Another important point, according to Che-Lives member perception:
"I think an important point in countering this argument - that without MNC's providing sweatshop jobs there'd be no jobs at all in these countries - is that these corporations consume the capital of the developing nations, 'crowding out' domestic industries from developing. Further, the profits they generate are expatriated back to the mother country, whereas if it was a domestic operation the profits would be reinvested in the economy and used to create more jobs. So, in effect, they are not in any way helping in the long run as they are actually hindering the development of the domestic economy, freezing it, so to speak, in the state of dependency on foreign capital. And if conditions do improve - for example, productivity increases and the workers are able to demand higher wages - the foreign capital packs up and moves on, leaving nothing to behind but its abandoned factories.
"In the end, it would be 100x better for the third worlders if they were being paid shˇt wages by domestic capitalists, because at least then they would be contributing to the development of their economy."