Affrimative action under socialism

[Reds]

I support the US policy of affirmative action but under socialism would color blindness be a better policy for that system.

[Vanguard1917]

I think "colour-blindness" would be a better policy even in this system. I am against all multiculturalist policies, which i see as being essentially divisive.

[rioters bloc]

i agree

governments trying to cover up entrenched racism and discrimination frustrates me. they should instead be working on ways to eradicate institutionalised inequality. arghhhhhhh

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:48 PM
I think "colour-blindness" would be a better policy even in this system. I am against all multiculturalist policies, which i see as being essentially divisive.
1. Blindness of any kind is not a good thing. Why would you have to ignore someone's nationality in order to recognize common humanity or common class interests? It's a big pile of liberal nonsense, to just declare a "level playing field" and pretend that solves the problem.

2. Its racist, sexist, etc discrimination that divides the working class. And I don't know what "multiculturalism" has to do with anything.

3. Affirmative action is a necessary measure to fight discrimination. To reduce discrimination in practice, not just on paper. It should have teeth, to require employers to actually hire people, not just declare formally that they don't discriminate.

Over past decades, affirmative action policies have tremendously reduced the racist and sexist division of the working class, by enabling Blacks, Latinos, and women to break into a lot of jobs from which they were previously excluded. And racial discrimination has been dealt bigger blows in industry than anywhere else.

4. These problems do not magically disappear on the day of the triumph of a revolution.

On the contrary, it's precisely then that all the pent-up desire for justice of all the oppressed and exploited comes to the surface. A revolutionary government will be expected to keep its promises....not just on paper, but in practice.

Affirmative action is certainly a necessary part of that. Postcapitalist governments have succeeded or crumbled based in large part on their ability to overcome these kind of divisions...by championing the needs of the most oppressed.

Rather than just mouthing phrases about equality and brotherhood, while the traditionally oppressing nationality remains on top, and alll the economic inequality between nationalities remains intact.


governments trying to cover up entrenched racism and discrimination frustrates me. they should instead be working on ways to eradicate institutionalised inequality. arghhhhhhh

Arghhhh indeed. Color-blindness is part of covering up entrenched racism and discrimination, and affirmative action is a necessary part of eradicating institutionalised inequality.

[Vanguard1917]

And I don't know what "multiculturalism" has to do with anything.

Multiculturalism has a lot to do with calls for affirmative action - or "positive discrimination", as it is called in Britain. It comes from the postmodernist logic. It argues that in order to defeat racism we have to acknowledge the "cultural differences" between races and accomodate for such differences. Whereas, in the past, anti-racism meant demanding that everyone be treated equally, today it means that everyone be treated differently. Multiculturalist policies encourage every "cultural group" to base its demands around its "cultural interests". So we now see an increase in the workplace of "black workers" being encouraged by the state and state-sponsored organisations to "come together" and push for their own particular "interests", whatever they might be. The same with Muslim workers, gay workers, etc. All this at a time when racism and homophobia in society is at an all time low, especially in the big cities.

Large sections of the old left in Britain blindly support multiculturalist policies. This is because they fail to see that multiculturalism has its roots in the political establishment.


Why would you have to ignore someone's nationality in order to recognize common humanity or common class interests?

It's not so much about "ignoring" nationality; it's about emphasising class commonality over "cultural difference".


It's a big pile of liberal nonsense, to just declare a "level playing field" and pretend that solves the problem.

No...... It is liberals who most strongly support the "celebration of differences".

This is also about "identity". The more the liberal elites emphasise "cultural identity", the more divided society becomes. There seems to be an infinite amount of "cultural indentities" coming to the surface nowadays, with people choosing to indentify themselves in more and more atomised fashion. Whereas before people identified themselves with grand collectives (such as trade unions, political parties, mass social movements, or even social classes), today people are encouraged to identify themselves differently from everyone else.

I found this really good article (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACE2.htm) about multiculturalism. I'd really like to hear your opinion...

[patrickbeverley]

SEVERIAN: Affirmative action is a necessary measure to fight discrimination. To reduce discrimination in practice, not just on paper. It should have teeth, to require employers to actually hire people, not just declare formally that they don't discriminate.

I agree 100%. In an ideal world, affirmative action would be unnecessary, but we do not live in an ideal world, and many employers would racially discriminate in hiring if affirmative action did not exist.

Also it is impossible for employers to be truly "colour-blind" unless they keep their eyes shut in face-to-face interviews.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:16 AM
Multiculturalism has a lot to do with calls for affirmative action - or "positive discrimination", as it is called in Britain.
Then it's a bad argument for a correct policy. Really, I think the whole debate for and against "multiculturalism" is a debate within bourgeois politics that I'm not much interested in getting sucked into.

I'll comment on the article you linked, though: it's central premise is: "But the crucial change is that these prejudices no longer enjoy official sanction and hence have little systematic impact on the lives of black people."

This is a load of crap, even bigger than the load of crap that the Ward Connerlys and Rush Limbaughs promote on this side of the Atlantic that the end of formal, legal segregation means the end of systematic racist discrimination. Bigger 'cause Britain never had the mass civil rights movement and everything that flowed from it. It pretends that racism is no longer a major problem.

Who is this Brendan O'Neill guy anyway, and what are his overall politics today? I've seen his stuff linked off antiwar.com, also, which always makes me suspicious.

The need for affirmative action was recognized a long time before multiculturalism. The recognition of the insufficiency of formal equality goes back to Lenin at least. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6939/693949.html) The fight for affirmative action was part of the civil rights movement in the U.S., contrary to all the Ward Connerlys who attempt to associate that movement with color-blindness and say, as you do, that "Whereas, in the past, anti-racism meant demanding that everyone be treated equally, today it means that everyone be treated differently."

You say "So we now see an increase in the workplace of "black workers" being encouraged by the state and state-sponsored organisations to "come together" and push for their own particular "interests", whatever they might be. The same with Muslim workers, gay workers, etc". Well, if the state is being successful in this, maybe it's because the unions aren't doing their job in the fight against racism. Fix that, and nobody will feel the need for a separate organization of Black workers. If it can't be fixed by other means, then maybe there should be such an organization.

Affirmative action is not the invention of multicultural liberals, and we don't need to drop it because they've started arguing for....some weak and half-hearted version of affirmative action.

How about you engage the arguments I've made for affirmative action, or explain why you're against hiring more Black people in and of itself, rather than arguing with "multicultural" liberals who aren't present on this forum.